Trans historian re-writes women's history - will her book now become course reading? Bet it does.

[stumbledin]

In the Times today there was an article titled "Husbands who were not men", but online it is called "Female Husbands: A Trans History by Jen Manion" review.

I read the review because it sounded interesting (and had a picture from Gentleman Jack), but it seemed obvious that this was about transing the past, not about looking a the partriarchal factors that might make women dress as men - let alone being same sex attracted.

The worry is of course that with schools and universities being so woke this will just become a standard text. Yet another part of the onging pressure to view everything through the trans lens.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/culture/female-husbands-a-trans-history-by-jen-manion-review-g9cjcrcnj

Hopefully someone has a share token.

Female Husbands: A Trans History by Jen Manion review

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/41175512-6391-11ea-b021-fae459863cfa?shareToken=a26366dae8824d300f73799ec5512766

Bithbe thanks for the share token.
I couldn't read it all.

Thanks bitheby - and sorry to everyone else. Need to upgrade my knowledge about share tokens.

Well that's maddeningly frustrating. I'm not sure how Jen identifies beyond Trans, but let's just say I know many butch lesbians that rock that styling.

What possesses someone to erase their own history like that? What is with the eager desire in academia to overlay very modern sensibilities about 'identity' anachronistically onto the sparse recorded instances of historical women challenging the patriarchal conventions of the day?

I mean, I can understand looking at these histories and using them to examine and critique the modern day. But it seems so bloody amateurish to try and squish our own views over the top of them. Almost colonial.

FFS. Anne Lister (Gentleman Jack) was not trans. She was very much a lesbian.

Sounds like an interesting grouping of people so that's good.

Not content with erasing the category of lesbian in today's time, it seems the few women-loving-women who made it into history books must go, too.

Well...

I suppose it's good to know what books to avoid when I want to keep my blood pressure in check.

it seems so bloody amateurish to try and squish our own views over the top of them. Almost colonial.

This, exactly.

it seems so bloody amateurish to try and squish our own views over the top of them. Almost colonial.

I agree with this too.

But it’s also bloody annoying that they are effectively saying there were almost no women in history at all. It’s not as if we have many of them to start with, but they are taking them and pretending they never existed as women. Obviously anyone who made an impact in the past couldn’t be a weak and feeble woman. She must have been a man. Well they can fuck right off with that.

Dale Spender wrote a book about all the ways men erased women from human history down through the years.
"Women of Ideas, and What Men Have Done To Them" needs to be updated and republished.

"Women of Ideas" has been one of my favourite books ever since I first read it as a uni student in the 1980s. It ends with Spender wondering whether men will manage to erase the ideas of second wave feminism and whether future feminist will have to invent the wheel yet again. These days it's almost painfully ironic!

("Women of Ideas" also gave me an immense appreciation for the first wave feminists.)

But it seems so bloody amateurish to try and squish our own views over the top of them. Almost colonial

I think colonialism is a very good analogy. It id about a top down imposition of a dominant narrative. It dictates language in attempt to control and silence dissent and enforce compliance. There is a Year Zero fanaticism at the epicenter of this ideology. Professor Selina Todd was targeted because these activists didn't like her historical conclusions about why women disguised themselves as men

Please don't complain about people writing books, it's very censorious. If you disagree, the answer is writing/supporting books/reviews etc countering the argument, NOT trying to refuse freedom of speech to people you disagree with.

Why not read the book then see if you disagree with it?

Please don't complain about people writing books, it's very censorious

I tell you what's censorious. The fact that an Oxford University feminist Professor requires bodyguards because trans activists don't like her research conclusions that women disguised themselves as men because they were living in a patriarchal society. Not because they were 'trans.' People have every right to ridicule books which seek to impose 21st century dubious interpretations on women from previous centuries.

By the way? If you are concerned with censorship I suggest you direct your attention to the #no debate, cancel culture fanatics who are trying to silence anyone who challenges the trans ideology.

Who's trying to censor the book? The book's merits (or otherwise) are being discussed

I've noticed this DARVO type behaviour a lot recently - trans activists (not saying you are one) accusing feminists of doing what they are. It's transparent

Would it be worth writing to the Times - pointing out exactly what you’ve said here? They might feel that they have to publish a review of the book but they might also be happy to publish a letter whereby you can point out the the issues and enable at least some people to see that it’s not a ‘proper’ history book but one that is deeply misogynistI’ve and homophobic not to mention dodgy on the history and interpretation..,

Please don't complain about people writing books, it's very censorious. If you disagree, the answer is writing/supporting books/reviews etc countering the argument, NOT trying to refuse freedom of speech to people you disagree with. Erm, I think you have missed the points being made here and have made up a whole fiction to suit yourself there. Nobody has said anything about banning, censorship, avoiding etc! That has never happened here... MN/FWR as a whole tends to be against silencing and no platforming. That's why this is being discussed rather than condemned out of hand!

Why not read the book then see if you disagree with it? Having read the article there is so much that has, in just 19 posts, been discussed and disagreed with. Could you try to engage with any of that? Or are you just here to tell Them Pesky Wimmins to play nice and shut the fuck up?

severalboxes I must have missed where anyone called for the book to be banned? I might well read the book if I can get it via the library.
How is responding with critique of the concept, having read a fulsomely approving review, and talking about exactly what is actually a bad thing about such a concept using measured language, not countering the argument or, further, attempting to stop the freedom of speech of the author?

I'm not sure I understand your post.

Surprised not to see one mention of lesbian, did i miss it?

Can anyone see the comments under this article?

It says there are 12 comments (scroll right down under the "Related Articles") but none are loading for me:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/41175512-6391-11ea-b021-fae459863cfa?shareToken=a26366dae8824d300f73799ec5512766