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.

@MonkeyNotOrgangrinder

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

Worth remembering that anyone getting their work out there at the moment is walking a tightrope. As you may have seen on other threads - publishing is completely captured. That there are books coming out at all on this topic is a huge thing.

This was posted on another thread recently and bears reading here - Kathleen's book has been published the same week that yet another letter denouncing imaginary "transphobia" in publishing was circulated. It's absolutely vicious out there - just take a look at all the pronouns in bios of publishing Twitter. (I know it's Douglas Murray and you might not like him but he's right here - and also ignore the left wing ref as it's not really about that).

unherd.com/2021/05/publishing-is-now-a-leftist-bubble/

Worth remembering that anyone getting their work out there at the moment is walking a tightrope

Feminist Current interview by Meghan Murphy with Kathleen Stock and Natasha Chart (board chair of Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF))
February 2019

This was a response to Julia Long, Venice Allen and Kellie Jay Keen's trip to Washington.
It is important context.

www.feministcurrent.com/2019/02/21/podcast-kathleen-stock-and-natasha-chart-discuss-the-issue-of-feminists-allying-with-the-right/

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.

I get that ^^ from neurotypical friends, about not being comfortable.

Being autistic gives me the freedom to actually not give a shit and I don't have that battle of 'oooh, better not say that, it's not nice'. If I'm asked a question, I give an honest answer. And a lot of times, I'm berated for it without actually knowing why because the answer I've given is correct, but I'm not allowed to say it because of the unspoken rules.

Reading articles, by who I assume are neurotypical women, telling the truth about sex being set in stone and gender being a social construct, is great because it shows that it's not my rigidity at play. It's fact based on science.

Hello @BlackeyedSusan

Reading articles, by who I assume are neurotypical women, telling the truth about sex being set in stone and gender being a social construct, is great because it shows that it's not my rigidity at play. It's fact based on science.

This article by Barra Kerr discussing the impact of using/being expected to use incorrect sex pronouns is worth reading:

(extract)
"One of the biggest obstacles to halting the stampede over women’s rights is pronoun and preferred name ‘courtesy’. People severely underestimate the psychological impact to themselves, and to others, of compliance."
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Just read a good tweet by @ heke_nig about exactly what Barra Kerr explains, but cutting even closer to the bone.

Eye and brain bleach needed for other areas of his current twitter. (It's quite an education. Dunno how long it will last.)

Whilst I'd disagree with an author on certain points in this, I wouldn't return a book.

We have enough cancel culture going on as it is. Surely better to read the book debate the points? By all means pass it on.

Thanks for that article @R0wantrees

You’ll find you have to consciously fight the conflict of input to your brain each and every time. And it leaves you confused, distracted, slower, frustrated and fatigued.

Forcing our brains to ignore the evidence of our eyes, to ignore a conflict between what we see and know to be true, and what we are expected to say, affects us.

To a degree, this is what it's like for someone with autism trying to deal with participating in everyday life.

To have the additional layer of discrimination when we don't 'get it' because our neurodiversity blocks the capacity to see beyond, and there is an expectation for us to enter into guess work, seems incredibly unfair. Autism would fall under the EA2010 as disability is a protected characteristic, yet men who call themselves 'Barbie' and like to dress in pink from head to toe because that 'makes them a woman' are given way more consideration than others who should have that protection by law.

I feel as though I'm kicked in the teeth twice. For being a woman - adult human female and being disabled.

Clarice99
There are growing numbers of women standing up and saying no. I think there is some comfort to be found in solidarity despite the horror of realising how bad things are for women and girls.

Twitter group GCAutistics may be worth following/making contact with:
"We are a group of gender critical autistics who have created a platform to speak out about the risks of affirming the dysphoria of autistic children."
twitter.com/GCAutistics

@ErrolTheDragon

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.

I agree with this.

I have immense respect for Tinsel and for Julia Long so I will be returning my copy of Stock’s book for refund. I don’t have to agree with everything someone writes (or says) to support their work but the quoted excerpt from Stock’s book made me angry that she would frame things in that way. It’s so dismissive of the lives and struggles of many women who have been gaslit and tormented by their partners/spouses and by society at large.

Adding a second post to say that when I receive my refund, I’ll donate it to Standing For Women 🤔

That screen shot on AnyOldPrion’s link from Stock’s book is outrageous.

Looks like Stock ignores the issue of female’s consent and boundaries, and instead prioritises male’s desires and feelings, above female’s right to refuse to indulge them. She doesn’t seem to give a damn about how that is harmful to females, particular to transwidows and lesbians, she only seems interested in positioning herself as ‘reasonable’. She sounds like a libfem talking about ‘kinkshaming’ when women condemn male’s harmful sexual behaviour. I remember the old saying which goes something like ‘if your feminism is approved of by men then it won’t benefit women’.

Stock is also a late comer to this situation, many longtime feminists like Sheila Jeffreys and Julia Long and many other women, have been involved in this for a very long time. It doesn’t seem to occur to Stock that maybe feminists who have been involved in this for such a long time know a bit more about this situation than a relative new comer.

It is longtime feminists like Sheila and Julia and others like them, who have led the current resurgence of feminism, with all the consciousness raising they have done. Feminists like Sheila and Julia who prioritise females need to be front and centre, I think we need more women like them talking to parliament etc., on behalf of females, we can certainly do without people who think males are being ‘stigmatised’ when females condemn male’s sexual paraphilias that harm females.

@WarriorN

Whilst I'd disagree with an author on certain points in this, I wouldn't return a book.

We have enough cancel culture going on as it is. Surely better to read the book debate the points? By all means pass it on.

I agree, and don't want to cancel Kathleen Stock I'm any way

I completely agree Stopthisnow

Stock is also a late comer to this situation, many longtime feminists like Sheila Jeffreys and Julia Long and many other women, have been involved in this for a very long time. It doesn’t seem to occur to Stock that maybe feminists who have been involved in this for such a long time know a bit more about this situation than a relative new comer.

Sheila Jeffreys 2012 paper, 'The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics'
Published Women's Studies International Forum volume 35
objectnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Transgenderingchildrenarticle.pdf

Julia Long, ''Transgenderism and Male Violence.'
From ‘Thinking Differently: Feminists Questioning Gender Politics’, a one-day conference held at Conway Hall, London, UK, on Saturday 16 July 2016.

Women deciding to return a book and claim a refund are not "cancelling" the author.

Janice Raymond wrote The Transexual Empire in 1979 janiceraymond.com/the-transsexual-empire/

I think you can get a pdf online, it was her dissertation supervised by Mary Daly. I think my version was published by the Women's Press (I no longer have it). I read it early 90s, never dreaming we'd be in the state we are in 30 years later.

Kathleen Stock positioned herself carefully and deliberately as the reasonable voice in this debate. Politically pure and willing to compromise.

Compromise on this issue results in women and girls being harmed. An accommodation that involves some adult males being included in the female class brings consequences. Which are typically borne by some of the most vulnerable women and girls. Those least able to express their needs and assert their boundaries.

Yes, Julia's article was hard hitting and she singled out individuals that were hurt by her doing so. That did make me uncomfortable. In my view she is right though that compromise compromises us. And that it does so without many of us noticing or understanding the harmful longterm effects even just these linguistic compromises have.

But in my view Kathleen Stock is also wrong if you look at the available statistics. Before the current situation arose, when it was about transsexuals who typically transitioned medically if they could, even then the number of early-onset homosexual transsexuals was much smaller than the number of late-onset non-homosexual transsexuals. The latter, as we know from TinselAngel's awareness raising support threads for the women and children living with these individuals, may be meaningfully transitioning but often at great cost to their families.

And now the numbers of transsexuals are swelled by transgender individuals who do not wish to transition medically but claim the protections and policies created for transsexuals to access opposite sex provisions. Which harms even more women and girls.

So, maybe it's not what a nice woman does, nor a reasonable one, but if she does assume nefarious intent, as Kathleen Stock criticises in that excerpt, statistically speaking this unreasonable not-so-nice woman is now much more likely to be right than wrong.

And why are women and girls expected to adapt their language so as not to upset the very people who are infringing on their rights? Because only nice girls get what they ask for? We know that no amount of self-inflicted censorship or tone policing will motivate males opposed to any or all sex-based rights for females to change their minds. We have the long, long history to prove it.

Great post Charley.

No, it's not directly cancelling, but it feels part of the culture. I suppose if bought from Amazon, make sure there's a verified review there before requesting refund, outlining exactly why.

I'm not buying the book personally.

That is an excellent article.

And I would be very interested to see someone attempt to disagree with even one point. And not in a combative way. I really think it's unarguable on every level.

Part of the construction of 'cancel culture' is that anyone simply critiquing a particular statement/action or returning a book is deemed to be "cancelling" someone because of the dominant narrative.

I deliberately bought a god awful children's book about a trans boy transitioning to look at it properly, leave the review, but also so I can show it an example to friends and colleagues to illustrate a point. Perhaps I should have asked for a refund; I'm not rolling in money by any means, but the ability to use it to make my point is more valuable.

Ok, I see your point R0.

Reviews are soooo useful...

Julia Long’s going to be on the Standing for Women YouTube channel tonight at 9.

Just coming to post the same. You can submit questions if you subscribe to the emails.