What do people think?

[TheTamingOfTheresa]

I’m in support of JK but came across this video dissecting her views. I’d be interested in what MN thinks

Clearly these particular idiots are too stupid to have actual tactics, but there is something about these long-winded, convoluted arguments that I think is intended to wear people down before they even get started. If something takes an hour to explain, that suggests that there's a LOT of content to get through, and if it needs to be explained in such an in-depth way, that suggests it's something that is pretty complex and would need a lot of attention to really understand. So in a sense, the video works better if you don't watch it, because its mere existence is telling you there's a detailed and complex and substantial amount of content and you have to be pretty smart to get it. (Whereas actually watching it risks exposing the flimsiness and dishonesty of the content.) So you can feel justified in saying JK is a bigot because there's all this weighty argument behind you, and if anyone challenges you, just link to the video. You haven't watched it, but let's face it, your opponents probably can't be arsed to watch it either. So it does all its rhetorical work simply by existing.

And they had the cheek to say JK's essay was 'really long'!

@SheWhoMustNotBeHeard

I tried to watch the video. I really did but when she said "we're trying to protect women's rights,including cis women's rights," I just couldn't get further.

This is why I, and it looks like many other women, can't be arsed to watch the damn thing.

It's unutterably predictable.

And the reason why it's so predictable, is because there IS no counter argument to sex is real and this is why it matters.

It's all waffle, mangling of logic, and at the end of the day, be nice.

Or, be nice, or else.

I've seen enough of these two to know the level of intellectual weight their 58 minute video will carry and what kind of 'arguments' they will make. No thanks.

This is a very sweet, lesbian couple. They seem very in love. Interesting that they only became a couple after the trans identifying one decided they were a man, thereby allowing the cis identifying one to begin a relationship that was approved by her parents, unlike when they were two women.
However, sweet as they are, they are very, very dumb and very wrong.

I guess I would like to make it clear to OP that my problem with cis is that it assumes something about my gender identity
The only reason I don't identify as trans is because my gender identity has so little impact on how others see and treat me. Just the very fact that they are happy to label people as cis rather proves that, they want trans identities to be recognised yet at the same time assume that most people are cis identifying. Sort of "I'm trans because of this, you can't be because you don't act and dress like me"

I managed to get past 'cis', all the way to:

Biological sex is what the doctor assigns you as at birth

No thanks.

@CodenameVillanelle

I've seen enough of these two to know the level of intellectual weight their 58 minute video will carry and what kind of 'arguments' they will make. No thanks.

This is a very sweet, lesbian couple. They seem very in love. Interesting that they only became a couple after the trans identifying one decided they were a man, thereby allowing the cis identifying one to begin a relationship that was approved by her parents, unlike when they were two women.
However, sweet as they are, they are very, very dumb and very wrong.

And yet there's no homophobia? Give me a break. This is exactly what everyone from psychologists to parents to feminists are saying. Same sex couples should not need surgery, cross sex hormones and validation from the entire world to be in a relationship.

"we're trying to protect women's rights,including cis women's rights,"

Or in other words, they are just using the MRA line that women don't need specific rights and services.

@aliasundercover

I managed to get past 'cis', all the way to:

Biological sex is what the doctor assigns you as at birth

No thanks.

There were no doctors at the birth of my children. Their dad went to the registration office and registered their birth six weeks after they were born. The mind blowing stupidity of this "assigned at birth after a glance at genitals" garbage ignores the bloody messy reality of six weeks of bathing and nappy changing that parents do before the registration deadline.

It's too fucking stupid for words and yet people use it as if it is something profound.

Dim, dim, dim. I seriously question the intelligence of anyone using that drivel.

then might I suggest that the legs they have to stand on are notable by their absence.

I found out the sex of my children weeks, nay months before they were born. No doctors present then either!!

The mind blowing stupidity of this "assigned at birth after a glance at genitals" garbage

I'm pretty sure I remember something about checking testicles at the 6 week check. I'm sure this was for health reasons and had nothing to do with pink or blue. As far as I remember the testicles were already there, and not assigned by the doctor...

Thee is also the fundamental issue that agreeing with feminists that women's rights need to be defended falls apart if you don't have a common agreement as to what a woman is

Agree with JKR or don't agree but 58 minutes of picking apart some pretty simple straightforward statements to try and find fault sounds a bit abusive tbh

I feel sorry for Shaaba and Jamie. I hope this won't be the case, but I imagine them years down the line when Jamie starts to regret the hormones and surgery. They could have been a lovely lesbian couple.

Okay, I haven’t had time to watch the entire video, but I’ve watched the first 16 minutes. These are my thoughts. I am using the term Cis as it is used in the video.

First 1-2 minutes - explanation of cis and trans women. Both fall under the same ‘umbrella of women’. Shaaba asserts that a cis woman is ‘still a woman, it’s just another adjective for you’. Of course, no definition of ‘woman’ is provided, so it is difficult to understand what is meant by the term ‘umbrella of woman’ since ‘woman’ no longer means ‘adult human female.

2:56 (approx) Jamie and Shaaba are worried that people will come away from reading JKR’s essay feeling fearful of transpeople. I am not sure why they think this; no reason is provided.

Around three minutes in, JKR is criticised for not naming her sources. Given that JKR was writing a personal essay responding to accusations of transphobia, I am not sure it is fair that JKR has not provided full citations in her essay. I think it is a weak point to make, but others may disagree.

Jamie and Shaaba invite their audience to educate themselves.

Minutes 4 - 6 are taken up with an argument that biological sex and gender identity are both real and they are two separate things. They state that all trans people barring a very small minority believe in biological sex. They make the claim that gender critical people don’t understand this. They argue that GC people think that transpeople don’t think biological sex exists.

I believe this is a straw man argument. GC people do not believe that all transpeople deny biological sex. However, some transgender people do do this (which J&S also concede).

At around 5:40 J&S argue that Gender Identity is also real and is ‘innate knowledge’ that people have. They explain that if Shaaba’s body suddenly disappeared, she would ‘know’ that she was still a woman. This is Gender Identity.

For me, this argument is not persuasive. If I did not know what body I had, I am not sure I would ‘know’ whether I was a man or a woman any more than I would know what colour eyes I was supposed to have.

At 6:48 J&S assert that transwomen need women’s rights because they are women. Transmen do not need women’s rights because they are not women.

This got me thinking - what women’s rights do transwomen need? The right to paid maternity leave? The right to a smear test on the NHS? The right to compete in female-only sporting events? What if a transman got pregnant (it happens)? Would a transman need paid maternity leave?

In what way does gender identity give rise to women’s rights in a way that biological sex does not?

7:20 - J&S assert that JKR simply ignored gender identity. This is a bad thing.

8:00 - J&S state that JKR has given support to people who are transphobic.

At this point I was wondering what they classify as ‘transphobic’. Despite their assertions that everyone believes that biological sex is real, they really don’t seem happy when someone points it out. Is this transphobia, according to J&S? I am not sure.

At 8:18 J&S note that Harry Potter has traditionally been a safe space for the LGBT community. JKR’s essay causes pain to people who dress up as Harry Potter and celebrate magic. In Harry Potter, inclusivity is important and the underdogs are supposed to win.

Well, I’m very sorry for people who feel hurt by JKR’s essay. However, that doesn’t really have any bearing as to whether JKR’s arguments have merit or not.

8:53 - J&S start to go through JKR’s essay point by point, starting with Maya Forstater. They state it is hard to argue that JKR had good intentions since she misconstrued the facts as to what happened in the Forstater case. Maya is not so innocent. To show how transphobic Maya is they post screenshots of Maya’s Tweets. These include the one about whether there is a difference between a man identifying as a woman and a white person identifying as a black person; and that claiming a man can become a woman has no basis in material reality (I’m paraphrasing).

My personal view is that these are legitimate points to raise and are not transphobic. Saying that a man cannot become a woman is true, if you accept biological sex (which apparently everyone does). It is only not true if you believe in gender identity and that this trumps biological sex.

Maya also refused to use preferred pronouns in the workplace (I think J&S used the term ‘correct’ pronouns) and this contributed to a hostile working environment. In fairness, I can understand why this would contribute to a hostile working environment.

At around 10 minutes in, still talking about the Forstater case, Shaaba is critical that someone can disbelieve in the existence of Gender Identity. She argues that Gender Identity takes precedence over biological sex - doesn’t explain why. Points out that Jamie is ‘seen as a man not as female’. (Why use ‘female’ as opposite to ‘man’? Isn’t ‘female’ the biological sex and ‘man’ the gender identity? To me, this seems contradictory.)

J&S explained that the judge in Maya’s case used Granger and Nicholson 2010 to determine whether belief should be protected by law. The judge concluded that Maya’s belief did not fulfil the last provision which was that a belief must be worthy of respect and not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental human rights of others.

My personal view on this is that such a provision is open to interpretation and that Maya is right to appeal. However, J&S have concerns that Maya has crowdfunded using JKR’s essay as support. Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing entirely depends on whether you think Maya is transphobic or not.

12 minutes in - they go on to discuss the next bit of JKR’s essay. JKR is criticised again for not citing sources.

Jamie says that most researchers in the field support the concept of gender identity. On the screen some names of researchers come up: Roselli 2019; Swaab 2007; Savic Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab 2010. I don’t know what these researchers have said or studied - neither Jamie nor Shaaba provided any details, so cannot comment on them.

The audience was told that ciswomen have no need to fear transwomen.

At around 12:40 the audience was informed that if you debate with someone and the subject of the debate means more to them than it does to you, it will take a greater emotional toll on them. The fact that you can debate calmly is a consequence of your privilege and not increased objectivity on your part. This debate causes pain and distress to transpeople.

I do not think this is a strong argument. An emotional person can make a good case if the arguments stack up.

At 13:15 J&S express concern that people who weren’t concerned about transpeople before or who were oblivious now see transpeople as a danger. They say that if lots of transpeople are telling you something is wrong, please listen to them.

My response is: if lots of women are telling you something is wrong, perhaps you should listen to them too.

At around 13:30 J&S discuss the abuse that JKR has received. They condemn it wholeheartedly. They also object to creating a collage of different abusive messages from a minority of people and claiming it represents the whole trans community.

I think that is a fair point.

J&S point out that they also receive abuse. Jamie has been called delusional, an idiot, a f*ing freak among other things. This has led to depression and Jamie feeling invalidated. Shaaba says that all Jamie wants to do is ‘live and pee in peace’.

Shaaba says she has received threats as well, mainly from men for being with a transguy.

I agree that Jamie should absolutely not be receiving abuse. I think it is fair to challenge J&S on their beliefs. However neither of them should be subject to name calling or any other type of abuse. That said, I think it is extremely misleading to pretend this debate is about denying Jamie the right to ‘live and pee’ in peace.

At around 15:16 Jamie states that they have not received a calm or measured reply from ‘trans-exclusionists’. Jamie receives harassment. Jamie tries to rebut points with facts. Both sides in this debate can be mean.

If it is true that feminists have not tried to engage with Jamie in a calm and measured way, I think that is sad. My suspicion, however, is that it is not feminists who are the ones hurling the nasty abuse (although I could be wrong).

Anyway, I stopped watching just before 16 minutes, just as J&S were starting to talk about Magdalen Burns. I might watch the rest, but I probably won’t put a blow-by-blow account on Mumsnet. It takes far too long.

Have to say, I found the arguments all pretty weak so far.

@CodenameVillanelle

I've seen enough of these two to know the level of intellectual weight their 58 minute video will carry and what kind of 'arguments' they will make. No thanks.

This is a very sweet, lesbian couple. They seem very in love. Interesting that they only became a couple after the trans identifying one decided they were a man, thereby allowing the cis identifying one to begin a relationship that was approved by her parents, unlike when they were two women.
However, sweet as they are, they are very, very dumb and very wrong.

My daughter asked me to watch this too, and I had similar thoughts. They are a lovely lesbian couple and it's highly probable the one has strict parents who harbor homophobia or perhaps their extended family does so appearing as a heterosexual couple is much more palatable to conservative family members. ...and it was EXHAUSTING to watch.

@Floisme

Yes indeed. When did 'trans' become the default?

Men are the default in ever society so naturally transwomen view themselves as the default.

I stopped at cis 🤦🏻‍♀️

@ EdgeOfACoin wow that’s brilliant; thank you

Thanks edge!

Just clarification:

Maya also refused to use preferred pronouns in the workplace (I think J&S used the term ‘correct’ pronouns) and this contributed to a hostile working environment. In fairness, I can understand why this would contribute to a hostile working environment.

As far as I recall this is entirely untrue. Maya said countless times that she would use preferred pronouns.

She wrote this to refute all the nonsense people have said that she said.

medium.com/@MForstater/five-myths-and-truths-about-my-case-8466d69f9489

Truth: There was no trans colleague. There was no complaint to CGD that I “misgendered” anyone. There was no complaint of harassment or bullying. This is because there was no harassment or bullying.

Truth: I have repeatedly said, both directly to CGD and in my witness statement, and under intense cross examination at the hearing, that I am willing to use preferred pronouns, and of course treat individuals with respect.

People that have repeatedly misrepresented what Maya said and what her case was about. Likewise J. K. Rowling. It's just another tedious, tired tactic.

They argue that GC people think that transpeople don’t think biological sex exists.

Whether or not they believe sex exists, the point is that Stonewall and others are/have tried to remove the protected characteristic of sex from the EA.

*She argues that Gender Identity takes precedence over biological sex - doesn’t explain why. Points out that Jamie is ‘seen as a man not as female’.

To the extent that Jamie has access to hormones and surgery to change Jamie’s appearance so that Jamie is perceived as male. This has nothing to do with Jamie’s gender identity.

Has anyone heard 'cismen'? Anyone heard of people born male, XY, being referred to as 'cis'? No? Because that tells you all you need to know.

OP, I got about 10 minutes. They at least seem like people you could sit down and have a good debate with. But I think their arguments are weak (and I do mean weak, rather than just "I disagree with them"), which is why I'm not watching any further.

The thing that did it for me was the fact that they explained quite early on the difference between biological sex and gender identity, by explaining that trans men are men, because their assigned biological sex is "female", but their gender identity is "man". They explain this as if it is self-evident, but they are basing that conclusion on the assumption that what makes you a man or a woman is your gender identity rather than your sex. This is the exact thing GC people argue against! So they need to make an argument rather than just state that point as though it is self-evident. I watched a bit further, but I think they're begging the question too much.

You have hit the nail on the head there Bluebrush.

Identity in the way we are experiencing it in 2020 is nothing more than a spoken or written assertion. It's a translucent mirage of outspokenness that falls on fallow ground. It's not finding a fertile field to grow in because of its underlying basis of falsehoods.