Scotland's feminist schism - Helen Lewis

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Excellent (I thought) long read:

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/05/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-election/618790/

What is driving the SNP’s behavior? In the case of equality legislation, many of its activists believe that gender self-identification is the great civil-rights struggle of our time. Another explanation is that the party’s hegemony is so assured that its leaders live in a hall of mirrors, with NGOs and lobbyists reflecting their own opinions back at them. Big charities rely on the Scottish government for the bulk of their income, encouraging them not to rock the boat. It was considered radical when McAlpine invited grassroots feminist groups and gender-critical academics to give evidence about recording sex data in the census—instead of relying solely on charities such as Engender, which receives £275,000 of its yearly £355,000 income from the government. She had broken the hall of mirrors.

It is a very good, detailed long read and Jelen Lewis obviously understands the topic. But it’s still disappointingly half-finished in its explanations, such as:
The charge against gender-critical feminism is that it is fundamentally reactionary, an attempt to enforce old-fashioned ideas of what a woman or a man is.
As we all know, that is literally The argument against gender ideology based on sexist stereotypes. Which side of this debate says that if a 4 year old girl likes firefighters, she’s actually a boy? Gender critical feminism celebrates the abilities of women and men to transcend these stereotypes.

I know you all know this, but it would’ve been nice if Helen had been able to get that into her long article, because clarity is so important.

Article appears to be unavailable now, though still displayed on the front page.

It is available now, I had problems when I first tried to access it.

I know you all know this, but it would’ve been nice if Helen had been able to get that into her long article, because clarity is so important.

I agree, I like her writing but this suffers from the same thing her other writing on the subject does, that she's trying to sit on the fence. Unconvincingly. Much good it does her with the TRAs. I guess this is for an American publication and the readers are used to a very different political landscape. but yes it rather misrepresents what GC feminists stand for.

The charge against gender-critical feminism is that it is fundamentally reactionary, an attempt to enforce old-fashioned ideas of what a woman or a man is.

But that's bollocks!

• halfway through the article ...

But that's bollocks!
Yes, but actually that is the “charge against GC feminism” as put by all sorts of people (Nicola, Kirsty Blackman etc etc) who nebulously say things about self ID being the same as eg the repeal of section 28; a straightforward case of promoting equality.

And it’s based on a fundamental lie.

Somehow, the message that gender ideology is by definition reactionary and regressive needs to cut through, but almost nobody manages to get that into published journalism.

Yes, I see what you mean, Midsomer.

It's not a bad article on Scottish politics, though I think it's worth mentioning some of the scarier aspects lately - the loss of anything approachign a non-partisan civil service, for example, the ban on SNP members ever criticising the party.

Everything Sturgeon does is in reaction to Westminster, of course, to try and emphasise the differences between Scotland and rUK. She's quite staggeringly good at giving that impression - for example, that she handled Covid better than England. Death rates were the same.

though I think it's worth mentioning some of the scarier aspects lately - the loss of anything approachign a non-partisan civil service, for example, the ban on SNP members ever criticising the party

You might enjoy this:

wingsoverscotland.com/living-in-oceania/

"However, the U.S. discussion is more polarized along party lines, with Republicans floating vindictive laws to ban all hormone treatment for children, for example."

Seriously? This is vindictive? Give your head a wobble, Helen. The alternative is allowing adults to sterilise gender non-conforming children, ffs!

There is actually more nuance in the matter than you're allowing for, Fly. Most sensible doctors - even the ones who have grave concerns about the current affirmation model in gender dysphoria care - don't actually want to see any treatments banned outright, as they don't view treatment as a legislative decision but a medical one. Their concerns are around the medical/treatment paths and the data around them, not on whether something should be legal or illegal. It's too blunt an instrument, and that's where Lewis' framing is coming from.

@TartrazineCustard, a couple of years ago I'd have agreed with the sensible doctors. After the Tavistock GIDS scandal though - the harassment of whistle-blowers, the judicial review, the Care Quality Commission's inspection - the blatant and egregious failure of the medical establishment to set its own house in order makes a blunt instrument seem the least bad option

Sorry, mainly here to say that I think an opportunity was missed to call this "Scotland's feminism schism".

Otherwise, yes, legal interference is not ideal, but maybe it's the least worst option.

But are the bills in the US actually that blunt? Are they being correctly characterised?

Seriously? This is vindictive? Give your head a wobble, Helen. The alternative is allowing adults to sterilise gender non-conforming children, ffs!

Yes, I thought that.

I appreciate your view @TartrazineCustard and I understand that as a public figure subject to harrassment it is expedient to present a nuanced view.

I really don't think there's need for nuance when it comes to puberty blockers for children with 'gender' issues. It's a hard no from me.

If the claim is that these drugs allow children time to think about what they want to do (and that usually is the claim), I believe the claim is false.

Time is not what is needed, cognitive ability and emotional maturity is what's needed. And a child cannot develop either if their development his held in stasis.

This isn't my view, Fly. I've been listening in on discussions between doctor online and they object in principle to medical treatments being decided by legislators. It's a commonly held medical view, even if it doesn't sit well with where most of us on this board stand on this particular branch of treatment.

The culture war issue in the US is leading to lots of overreach in lots of areas, and ironically in this case the party who likes to wang on about "big government" is using legislation to make using any sort of medical pathway for children in any circumstance - even if they've tried every psychological intervention, even if they've looked into the possibility of trauma, even if they whole family has been checked and supported in an effort to deal with the dysphoria - illegal. That's pretty huge. I generally find the whole idea of paediatric transition pretty damned alarming, but I don't actually feel confident saying I have a hard "no" if absolutely everything has been tried. My concern is that absolutely nothing else is even considered before leaping to medical and surgical transition.