Julia Long article - A Meaningful Transition

[Clarice99]

Apologies if this has already been linked, but I received it today and share the confusion raised in the article.

If you can’t change your sex, why are the terms ‘transsexual’ and ‘transwoman’ lent credence among British gender critical feminists?

uncommongroundmedia.com/a-meaningful-transition-julia-long/

I'm fairly new to this section of MN and I have so much to learn. I have very black and white thinking due to autism, and I simply cannot buy into 'made up' gender in place of sex.

If I've incorrectly posted a link and need to copy the entire article instead, please post to let me know.

I'm not sure why such terms are generally employed by eg WPUK, which is what she mostly seems to be concerned with.

Here on MN we frequently use these terms because they're pretty much all we can use. There are terms some of us might think are more accurate which are explicitly disallowed, or liable to deletion even if not explicitly banned.

For those who haven’t seen this yet, this article has reappeared because Kathleen Stock criticised it (or Julia Long, at least) in her new book.

twitter.com/transwidows/status/1390947545422118919?s=21

Thanks for linking that Any, I'm annoyed that mn has deleted tinsel's thread referring to that. Can all be seen on twitter though.

I missed Tinsel's thread. What was the deletion message?

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

I missed Tinsel's thread. What was the deletion message?

Posts breaking talk guidelines, iirc. I'm not sure which tbh, I didn't think there were many deletions at the point the thread went. But best not to TAAT - the OP is asking a quite different, specific question about this piece itself.

‘Message from MNHQ: We've removed this thread due to the number of posts that break our Talk Guidelines.’

There are terms some of us might think are more accurate which are explicitly disallowed, or liable to deletion even if not explicitly banned.

I think that's part of the reason I don't post on here much. Because the scientific, biologically accurate terms are what I would use in speech and using something that's not accurate (in my black and white world) feels alien/fake.

I share Julia Long's position on use of language. I believe that adopting the terminology, even within the context of disagreeing with the premises and/or conclusions, was a big mistake. Once you have agreed to use the terminology, you reify the concepts and half the battle is lost.

I also believe that not engaging in a hard and unified push-back and a refusal to use this terminology has contributed to the present situation where speaking in 'more accurate' terms risks deletion or ban.

I have written previously about the development of terminology in this area and the conceptual shift that this has been designed to achieve. Alas, I cannot risk speaking of this here.

I cannot adequately discuss the risks to women in prison and safeguarding unless I can use language accurately.

'The importance of language when talking about transgenderism: Julia Long'
19 August 2020
Women's Human Rights Campaign (WHRC)

"This talk was given by Julia Long during the launch of Women's Declaration in Germany."

I also believe that the sidelining of Julia Long, Sheila Jeffreys and others who have worked in this area for very many years has contributed to the 'accepted position' that we will engage with and use preferred terminology. I disagree with that sidelining and believe that the movement would have benefitted from the cumulative expertise of such women right from the beginning.

@Clarice99

There are terms some of us might think are more accurate which are explicitly disallowed, or liable to deletion even if not explicitly banned.

I think that's part of the reason I don't post on here much. Because the scientific, biologically accurate terms are what I would use in speech and using something that's not accurate (in my black and white world) feels alien/fake.

That's a real shame. It has been pointed out before that requiring counter factual language can be discriminatory against people who aren't neurotypical.

Julia Long is completely right on language.

I cannot adequately discuss the risks to women in prison and safeguarding unless I can use language accurately.

This.

Orwell: There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language

It has been pointed out before that requiring counter factual language can be discriminatory against people who aren't neurotypical.

Pointed out on here?

I point the discrimination out IRL and explain that I deal with only with fact and I cannot grasp when faced with something that is essentially a lie.

This doesn't only apply to men who claim to be women, but everything.

I find that not buying into lies has caused me to become way more cautious about who I speak to and can be isolating. I observe people living in this world of pretense and it's really quite scary.

When I read articles such as the one I linked, and watching the video posted up thread (thank you @R0wantrees), I feel a sense of comfort in truth. As time goes on, that comfort is becoming less and less as truth is eroded.

Pointed out on here?

Yes. More than once - but (unfortunately) bears repeating.

Dr Julia Long spoke at the first 'We Need to Talk' meeting (this took place shortly after Maria Maclachlan was assaulted by T Wolf & other male TRAs at Speakers' Corner.)

In this 2017 speech Dr Julia Long ( researcher for the femicide census) talks of the importance of naming male violence within the context of feminist theory & history.

(extract)
"So why then is it important to make this distinction between sex and gender and why is it important to name men as men? Naming men as man was such a vital part of the women's liberation movement and feminist scholarship back in those early days. There were lots of books that had 'silence' in the title or essays that had 'silence' in the title because it was about women breaking the silences of our own lives and naming who was doing what to whom, and then seeing that there were patterns of this and that is how feminist theory emerged. So it's really crucial to name men as men because that is how we develop an understanding and an analysis of patriarchy. That's how. If we can't name men as men then we can't name patterns of male violence, we can't name who is in control.

So naming men as men, then, enables us to answer these kinds of questions: Who controls economic, social, political and cultural systems and institutions? In whose hands does this kind of economic and social and political power lay? Well, if we can name men as men then we can see exactly where it lies. And it also helps us to answer the question, who's doing what to whom? And so again, over decades, feminists have answered that question in terms of looking at what we know women are subjected to under patriarchal power relations between women and men: femicide, female infanticide, sex-selective abortion, female genital mutilation, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, poverty, economic disadvantage, prostitution, pornography, discrimination, objectification - I'm thinking here in addition to all the sex industry, but just the normalised objectification of high heels and make up and cosmetic surgery and all of this stuff - illiteracy - hugely more of the world's poor and illiterate are women rather than men - denial of reproductive rights, exploitation of reproductive and domestic labour ... I mean that was just a kind of quick list off the top of my head. Also, historically we can think about foot-binding, and I think we need to think about things like chest binding in relation to these factors, and also of course, witch-burning, and we've got a nice little example [referring to protesters outside chanting 'burn it down']... fortunately, touch wood, they haven't gone quite that far yet, but in terms of 'kill all TERFs' I think there is certainly echoes of former persecution of women, in terms of the current ... oh, it's gone a bit quiet there ... in terms of the current persecution by our friends outside." (continues)

transcription by pencilsinspace
pastebin.com/nGwr3i4U

**copyright permissions available

I remember reading JL's article and not being able to disagree with it. Also seeing Stephanie Hayton's face in that documentary, and being able to see clearly that she hadn't been able to speak freely, unlike DH, and was still unable to speak freely.
I've requested a refund for the Kathleen Stock book, for this reason.
Pronouns really are rohypnol, aren't they

Julia's article is excellent and one of the best written on this subject. Unfortunately women are forced or coerced into using language that is to our detriment which is why spaces we don't have to do that in are valuable.

Those spaces (Ovarit & Spinster being one example) are more niche than MN or Twitter so won't reach a wider audience but they provide a place where we can be truthful about the misogyny we are facing and speak plainly in a way that makes it clear.

I cannot adequately discuss the risks to women in prison and safeguarding unless I can use language accurately.

Safeguarding and Child Protection will (in all situations) risk being compromised by inaccurate language and/or supressed language.
Recognising sex is a basic requirement.

The aggro Maya F has had over her 'misgendering' of Gregor Murray has confirmed for me that it's a strategic error to ever agree to use preferred pronouns instead of sex-based ones in the first place.

In the English language pronouns are sex based.

I found that quite a difficult read. The realisation that it did make me uncomfortable to read Julia’s assertion of her boundaries on language has made me appreciate I’ve still got a fair amount of unpicking my female socialisation to do in my own mind.
Because she’s right.
Why am I, as a female, worried about what male people who don’t identify as men can call themselves if we don’t consent to using the word they have chosen? I’m not sure I’m comfortable (bold?) enough yet to say: “not my problem.” I completely get her point, and yet, that ‘it’s not nice’ kicks in.
As I said, a lot of unpicking to do.

I'm with you clarice, for someone with a communication disability, the woolly nature of the talk guidelines and deletions that are not within the spirit are very difficult and feel discriminatory as we do not have a hope in hell of following anything that is not clear and specific. sometimes it feels that there is no consideration for disabled women who try to join in the talk.

Sheila Jeffries describes transgenderism as part of the 'men's sexual rights movement' and describes (failed) attempts to push the boundaries of women's spaces back in the 1970s.

Speech is from the first 'We Need to talk' event which followed Maria Machlaclan being assaulted at Speakers Corner in 2017:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoaCr2qtC-w

What really keeps astounding me, is that some self-appointed “gender critical” thought leaders, cannot see that agreeing to pretend that some men are women, is how we ended up in this mess in the first place.

It just seems like such a basic truth, that seeing anyone purporting to be fighting for women and girls fail to grasp this, makes it clear that this fight must be fought by the grassroots, i.e us.

Professional feminists will always make compromises that harm us.

Thanks OP, I had not seen that article.