Reverse Voltaire article.

[Xanthangum]

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

I have often wondered why the TRA faction so vehemently disagrees with JKRs statements of fact around the reality of the semester, as you need to respect the existence of sex in order to transition from one to the other.

This article, Harry Potter and the Reverse Voltaire by Mary Leng goes some way to explaining why. medium.com/@mary.leng/harry-potter-and-the-reverse-voltaire-4c7f3a07241

Its fairly lengthy but well worth it.

It concludes, while there might well be some good reasons to adopt a concept of ‘woman’ according to which trans women are women, we cannot do so without also retaining the separate concept of ‘female’ and without retaining the ability to talk about — and fight against — the forms of oppression faced by female people under patriarchy. This is not to say that we don’t think that trans people exist, or that they matter, and it is not to say that we don’t believe that trans people also suffer harms under patriarchy. We do see all this. And we would like to work together to dismantle a system that harms us all. But we cannot do this if we are not permitted to acknowledge what is distinctive about the way each group (females and trans people) are harmed by patriarchy. If we are denied the language and resources to recognise, record, and respond to the facts of female oppression, we will not be able to ameliorate these harms.

(And the postscript and post-postscript are fascinating too)

*sexes. Not semester. Good god, my autocorrect has gone quite loopy.

I think that is a pretty good article. Really balanced and I don’t thin that any reasonable person could disagree with it (although as the article says they probably agree with it but disagree with the author’s right to say it).

An interesting and thought-provoking article.

I have been puzzled that the reasonable arguments from a gender critical viewpoint have not had the traction I might have expected. This article provides a potential explanation.

I wonder if these insights could suggest a different way to present the GC position that could lead to a less aggressive response from gender ideologists? A wise marketing colleague used to tell me that it was only possible to influence people if your argument was consistent with their beliefs - you never get anywhere by telling them their beliefs are wrong and why.

If the starting position is that sex is important, but also hateful, then there is no need to re-state the importance of women's sports, women's refuges etc. Maybe acknowledging the pain/ suffering caused by the centreing sex could be a starting place for a more constructive discussion.
I'm thinking out loud here. If there's an opportunity to defuse the toxicity and start moving towards dialogue, I would welcome it.

But what is a trans person? It's the very concept that you can actually be a woman trapped a male body (or vice versa) that is causing the problem for women's rights and safety.

Getting people to accept that premise is the dangerous foot in the door for everything else.

I do agree about the marketing person's observation though. If you yell at someone they do tend to switch off and dig their heels in. Better to use an approach which brings a well-meaning person to see themselves that there is no logic to their stance. This does not work, however, in the case of malignant narcissists who bloody well know the emperior is naked: their whole power trip is to force other people to admire the clothes they know are non-existent.

It is a good article and expresses many of the arguments I have, especially the fact that women's rights battles have always been about the rights of female people because sex-based discrimination etc. is based on sex or perceived sex and not on what one identifies as.

But I doubt the trans activists would accept the offered compromise. Indeed, I have seen several argue that they are female and that therefore their bodies are female, too. If that becomes more common then there are no words left for describing a biological woman.

I found this article made a lot of sense of arguments I've had with friends. I have no idea how to get past it.

For me, its the anti-science thing.

It's totally possible to support, love and respect the trans community, and at the same time reject the 'trans women are women' mantra on the basis that it isn't true, and also, it suggests a future for people questioning their identity that isn't possible. Even with hugely disruptive and life-changing drugs and surgery, it just isn't possible to change sex.

Respecting science is not transphobic. But they keep battering us with TWAW and in so doing, damaging their cause.