Extraordinary essay by Julia Long

[MiladyBerserko]

A blistering critique of Kathleen Stock's book

I do agree. Being a good girl is not getting us anywhere.

4w.pub/why-feminism-matters-for-feminism/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

I don't think Stocks view should go without criticism just so we appear more in agreement than we really are.

I think it's very important to highlight discrepancies and safeguarding fails within any opinion, especially when those opinions seem to becomming more mainstream and acceptable.

I think its irresponsible to stand by and stay silent just to appear united when women and girls may be damaged.

Absolutely this.

Building on that -

A very relevant factor here is that there are financial and career-enhancing motivators for taking a moderate, conciliatory approach. Such approach is going to be more commercial, which will result in more money, publicity and professional acclaim.

I don’t personally agree with one or two of Julia Long’s points but my God do I admire her integrity. I have met her and liked her very much.

A very relevant factor here is that there are financial and career-enhancing motivators for taking a moderate, conciliatory approach.

I fully accept that the book wouldn't have been published without some of the material to which I object. However, some of the material to which I most object (the offhand treatment of transwidows) could have been omitted (at worst) or handled much better without detracting from the overall sense of conciliation etc.

Stock speaks the language of transgenderism, linguistically promulgating the myth that such beings as “trans people” exist. (In a Dalyesque reversal, she also replicates the fiction that “the trans community” is some kind of oppressed group).

You see, I don't think this is productive at all. Asserting that trans people don't exist is like asserting that people who like oranges don't exist. Or that lesbians don't exist. Of course trans people exist so the problem is how to ensure they enjoy a peaceful existence with no detriment to women's rights.

Acknowledging trans people exist takes the ammunition away from TRAs who assert that T are trying to remove their human rights.

I also think it's silly to pretend that trans people aren't an oppressed group. There are certainly struggles directly related to being trans that are not the same as the struggles directly related to being born female.

I'm 💯 with Kathleen Stock and thought Material Girls was brilliant.

To avoid my comments and point being misinterpreted, I’ll stop pussy-footing and be direct. I have long been dubious of all of the motivations for Kathleen Stock’s involvement in this. I have much more respect for Julia Long having such long-held (boom boom), steadfast and bold views, despite them clearly not being personally profitable.

I haven’t read her book and won’t, so I take the word of those who have about what’s in it.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

I don't think Stocks view should go without criticism just so we appear more in agreement than we really are.

I think it's very important to highlight discrepancies and safeguarding fails within any opinion, especially when those opinions seem to becomming more mainstream and acceptable.

I think its irresponsible to stand by and stay silent just to appear united when women and girls may be damaged.

I agree and i don't think whipping up animosity helps (not that I think this article is particularly doing that, just how things get framed). On the other hand I disagree with some of the things in Long's article.

I've not read KS's book yet but I think having two works giving the "moderate" and "extreme" gc view (v poorly worded and I don't think I mean that, particularly as I've not read the book! ) is a clever move as one view can be compared to the other, for the less initiated.

I wonder if KS will look less of a "T-rf" (tongue in cheek) in comparison? I'm possibly being incredibly naive with that in terms of who decides who is and isn't acceptable...

Unfortunately KS’s position here leaves the door ajar, as it was left after the introduction of the GRA, which means it’s much more easily pushed against.

I agree this is definitely a risk. My views are informed by my own experiences which I see replicated on MN time and again.

When I first became aware of this issue I was firmly in the "be kind" concilliatory camp and thought mumsnetters were a bit harsh but I stayed and learned anyway. I really thought we could negotiate a solution, my naivety is embarrassing to me now. It very quickly became apparent that would not be possible. Whilst women spoke respectfully, asked for debate and refused to be provoked by bad faith agitators the TRA's were getting people arrested, stifling free speech, colonising the Labour party, attacking women with the temerity to voice their opinions, disrupting women's meetings, making bomb threats and accusing anyone who didn't agree with them of hate and bigotry. It didn't take long to grasp that nothing but totally capitulation to the TRA's every demand would be acceptable so I came to respect the uncompromising views of people like JL. I hope KS's book will be the gateway to the same journey for many other women.

Why ‘blistering’ response to Material Girls? Why not ‘considered’?
Yes agree. I read this as academic debate, not disagreement and I think its useful to challenge people's thinking on where they stand and why.
Too often there's a "if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality with "sides" but actually the debate is a spectrum with "a woman is anyone who says they are" on one end and "no male can ever be referred to or treated as a woman in any circumstances" on the other. I think most people fall in between those points and it's useful to think about where we are individually and why.
For me, I'm somewhere in between Stock and Long. And I've had my arse handed to me on here because of it.

I also think it's silly to pretend that trans people aren't an oppressed group. There are certainly struggles directly related to being trans that are not the same as the struggles directly related to being born female.

This is where words being used in different contexts in conversations is confusing.

The meaning of 'oppression' that male trans people face does not mean the same as the 'opression' female people face.

No one is demanding anything from males in this context. The oppression women face is based on the role we are expected to play - caring and putting someone else first against our own needs. No one is putting that oppression onto males.

The solution to the male version of 'oppression' leads to women having to perform the very oppression we are trying to move away from.

No one is demanding anything from males in this context. The oppression women face is based on the role we are expected to play - caring and putting someone else first against our own needs. No one is putting that oppression onto males.

I disagree. I see Julia Long demanding all males who identify as women accept they are men. She is writing off transgenderism completely as something that should not exist or be tolerated. That to me seems hostile and unproductive.

No. Males who want to be women are demanding that women treat them as women. They are oppressing women by forcing us to change our behaviour and our words to suit the males.

Women who don't see any male as women are not demanding anything from those males. They are just rejecting the expectation that women are to perform for males.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

I also think it's silly to pretend that trans people aren't an oppressed group. There are certainly struggles directly related to being trans that are not the same as the struggles directly related to being born female.

This is where words being used in different contexts in conversations is confusing.

The meaning of 'oppression' that male trans people face does not mean the same as the 'opression' female people face.

No one is demanding anything from males in this context. The oppression women face is based on the role we are expected to play - caring and putting someone else first against our own needs. No one is putting that oppression onto males.

The solution to the male version of 'oppression' leads to women having to perform the very oppression we are trying to move away from.

Yes, yes, I completely agree. I also agree with Julia Long as far as I can tell , i have not read Stock’s book yet, it is here in my to read pile.

I disagree. I see Julia Long demanding all males who identify as women accept they are men. She is writing off transgenderism completely as something that should not exist or be tolerated. That to me seems hostile and unproductive.
Agree with this. Ive just finished reading "Material Girls" and thought it was a good contribution to the pushback on "genderthink". Yes, shes not expressed the view of radical feminism in this book so thats a fair criticism but I think feminists on all sides should feel able to debate this without dismissing each other. I was interested in her take on the "immersion" theory - some of the posts from TWs that I have seen on here, seem to align with this. Is it damaging to encourage a long term misalignment with reality? She talks about cognitive dissonance and how that can mess with your head so perhaps she thinks it is. I guess if youre going to publish a book on this you do have to give some kind of respectful attention to the opposing view in order to contest it. She moves towards doing this in the later stages of the book. It was interesting to read the Julia Long essay too and I definitely agree with parts of it.

The problem is that feminism is based on a rejection of gender roles and gender itself as a concept. If you reject gender then how can you accept transgenderism as a concept either ?
I don’t think it is hostile to reject the basis of transgender ideology. We are females and males, everything else is taste, personality and temperament imo.

I'm not sure I'm really bothered whether or not trans people accept their birth sex - I don't think it's any of my business. I am bothered when it's demanded that we must accept that a trans person is the sex they say they are, and that we must do so in all circumstances - I think that's the point when it becomes my business too.

Does that align me more Julia's approach or with Kathleen's? Don't know and once again, I don't really care. I think they're both much braver than I am and they both have interesting things to say.

What I really admire about KS is she really seems to listen to the other side. It's very refreshing in a debate that is so toxic.

I have seen her speak and she has always been calm, moderate, respectful and insightful. I really don't think her moderate stance is a 'show' to make MG more commercial and sellable, I really think she can see all sides and wants to build bridges with TRAs.

Regarding the two approaches, I think there's a one way progressive principle I can often observe in a lot of feminists. The cognitive dissonance and compromising of truth required to hold Stock's position for any length of time causes significant strain. I see many feminists reach their final natural conclusion by ending up where Long rests: all lies, all pretence, eventually cause harm. Better the whole, unadulterated truth, in the end.

It's the natural progression of challenging oneself as to how much of a lie we're prepared to tolerate, how much harm we will countenance. If you stop to reassess for long enough, you usually end up more where Julia is than where Kathleen has stopped.

So as PandorasMailbox put it:
Put it this way. I started out as Stock and have become Long.

Or as a general principle:

Take Stock; Go Long

Take Stock; Go Long

Genius

Very clever

Yet many people come to the debate in Long's position, angry, hostile, belligerent. If they are only interested in shouting their view one way with limited / hostile engagement from the other side then that is fine. Many people do want to find a positive way forward thought. Or as a general principle:

So long, Long. Take Stock.

I think building bridges is fine and admirable. However (and excuse metaphor mangling) if some women are thrown under the bus in the haste to build bridges then that is not fine.

I also have to add that, whenever I've seen Julia Long speak (not often and only extracts) she has been calm and polite.

Yet many people come to the debate in Long's position, angry, hostile, belligerent.

My perspective is otherwise - as PPs say, a lot of us seem to have started from something akin to Stock's position but events have contracted and hardened boundaries to more of a Long hold.

I disagree. I see Julia Long demanding all males who identify as women accept they are men. She is writing off transgenderism completely as something that should not exist or be tolerated.

I disagree. Julia is saying words have meanings and these should not be changed to the detriment of women. Men who identify as women should recognise they are men because they are. This makes no comment on the fact they identify as women because that is all they are doing 'identifying as' - they don't become women and recognising this doesn't mean you are saying transgenderism doesnt exist but does recognise reality and the importance of the meaning of words to define women.

I agree with Julia Long on many things, especially her take on pornography, but she has made some strange decisions at times.

For example, I find it odd that such a radical feminist would be in cahoots with Posie Parker. There must be some serious cognitive dissonance going on there.

@Floisme

I think building bridges is fine and admirable. However (and excuse metaphor mangling) if some women are thrown under the bus in the haste to build bridges then that is not fine.

I've heard lots of talk about building bridges and finding common ground, but no actual practical examples of how it's possible.

Is it without consequences if a trusted teacher, vicar, or family doctor decides that he is now she? How can that be explained to children while maintaining safeguarding?

How do we publically support a man wishing to live as a woman, and, at the same time give meaningful support to his wife and children? Do they have a say in whether they are in a straight or gay marriage or have two mothers?

I've heard lots of talk about building bridges and finding common ground, but no actual practical examples of how it's possible.

It's all a bit "meet me in the middle says the reasonable man" as he takes a step backwards.

I also started as Stock and became Long. I've listened to and read too much crap from TRAs at this point to be anything other.