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

[MiladyBerserko]

I'll do me, you do you.

[Floisme]

I think that's a bizarre response. Your op had me interested but this thread is turning into Team Kathleen v Team Julia so I'm out. Have a nice day.

[Grellbunt]

Realistically, "trans" is not going to go away in today's world.

The public policy debate needs to focus on guaranteeing single sex spaces where they are needed.

[QuentinBunbury]

I absolutely will comment on Stock's motivations when she proposes the 'True Trans' argument as a reasonable position for women.
It is a totally reasonable position to accept some people have gender dysphoria and socially transition, and that those people might be given access to women's spaces and rights as a privilege. It's the position most people held before this all kicked off and its one most people are still happy with.

It is consistent with "humans can't change sex" as noone says they are changing sex.

Your position is different. That's fine. Doesn't mean someone else is wrong, or stupid, or hasn't thought it through.

I believe accepting transsexuals as women socially and legally is the right thing to do. By transsexuals I mean people with gender dysphoria who are having treatment and counselling for that, with medical gatekeeping and a diagnosis for their GRC.

I know others disagree. Fine. We live in a democracy though so it's the prevailing view that ends up in place. I don't think there's any motivation in society at large to refuse to recognise transsexuals as the gender they identify as.

[ZuttZeVootEeeVro]

I do think we need to at least bear in mind what is motivating women to speak out and what they want policies and practical day to day living to look like into the future. Especially if they have a large audience and therefore will have influence.

The real argument feminists are having now is if it's possible for a sub set of men to become women. But that's proving to be a difficult to articulate clearly, so instead we are arguing about the language used how mean or qualified to speak some commentators are.

If we were allowed to openly explore which men can become womenand how that will be implemented, we wouldn't have to second guess other womens motivations, because it would be out in the open.

[Charley50]

I haven't read KS book, but from JK's review, it does sound like she very much capitulates giving the TRAs legitimacy.

Especially the conclusion, where TRA and GC feminists are both framed as having a valid argument and both chastised for using underhand tactics. Frequently this is how it's reported in mainstream media. It's absolutely not true. The aggression, threats, and ongoing cancel culture fished out by TRAs cannot he compared to the reasonable fact-based arguments and discussion attempted by women opposing this ideology.
KS shouldn't be going along with this lie.

(I ❤️ JL)

[AdaFuckingShelby]

@MarianneUnfaithful

Interesting piece, and I will re-read it when I have read Material Girls.

I agree with donquixote. I hope this will not lead to feminist thinkers and writers chipping away at each other just as the Wall of Stone is beginning to crumble, or at least develop chinks.

The immersion in fiction is interesting. By definition not all religions can be ‘the truth’ and not all gods of every religion can exist, and we have no proof of any of it. People just ‘feel’ the presence of a god, or pose various vague ‘theories’ such as ‘intelligent design’ to explain how it fits with science.

And yet look how belief in (a) god has affected our society, laws, school curriculum, make up of the House of Lords, our very establishment and constitution.

For myself I cannot be judgemental or discriminatory about how someone wishes to present themselves, live within their own interpretation of a gender construct, or describe their sense of self.

But the boundary where that affects others - me, anyone who needs, deserves and is eligible for sex-based rights - needs to be able to be discussed. Without yelling ‘transphobe! TERF! Bad Feminist!’ and especially without ‘cancelling’ each other.

So yes to critical debate, yes to all the women who articulate and analyse much better than I can and for me to absorb, consider, learn from.

My thoughts exactly Marianne .

[QuentinBunbury]

If we were allowed to openly explore which men can become womenand how that will be implemented, we wouldn't have to second guess other womens motivations, because it would be out in the open.
Agree. Also I think a discussion about what "becoming a woman" means. To me it never can mean changing sex but it can mean being treated as a woman in social situations (pronouns etc)

[ZuttZeVootEeeVro]

To me it never can mean changing sex but it can mean being treated as a woman in social situations (pronouns etc)

I don't know how it could work in practice.
How would I begin to give my children the language to let me know if a man is in womans space, yet encourage them to address men as 'she' in social situations.

[MiladyBerserko]

Quentin, yes I do disagree because it's unmanageable and unfair to impose this on other women who do not think it is 'reasonable' and it forces women to pretend that they believe this is woman in front of them. And with the greatest of respect, you don't have the right to consent on other women's behalf, however well intentioned you are.

[QuentinBunbury]

I'm making an assumption that if a diagnosis and some work was required to be socially called "she" as a male, there wouldn't be that many people and those there were would accept misgendering by small children

I know my position isn't defensible against TRAs who will exploit any opening to force wider changes

[Grellbunt]

I wouldn't mind tolerating a social transition if I had confidence that it was grounded in genuine distress and had passed some standard of proper independent and objective gatekeeping. As it used to be.

[MiladyBerserko]

I may have agreed with you before the abuse and the threats, but for me the answer now is a firm no. Sex is immutable and I'm not going to be forced to lie. if I'm told to be kind, then it's women and girls first.

And yes, there might have been the few thousand transsexuals years ago, but the TRAs will take advantage of any opportunity to invade women's spaces and rights. It's time to say no.

[ZuttZeVootEeeVro]

I know my position isn't defensible against TRAs who will exploit any opening to force wider changes

But that's the problem. Some influencial people are talking about a way forward that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Instead of talking about it, they are calling people who want to talk about it bigots or unkind.

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

@Grellbunt

I wouldn't mind tolerating a social transition if I had confidence that it was grounded in genuine distress and had passed some standard of proper independent and objective gatekeeping. As it used to be.

Sadly - we're all accustomed to losing freedoms and conveniences because of bad actors.

It is distressing for the people who are oppressed by gender dysphoria to have had their needs appropriated and hijacked as part of a social movement by those who seek to strip large classes of people of their sex-based rights.

[Coyoacan]

I'm not convinced that hormones and surgery are a suitable treatment for people with gender dysphoria.

And though I totally agree this the GC feminist point of view, I am much more concerned about the children being sucked into all this by what they are being taught in school and on the internet.

So it is all very well to say be kind and call the nice ones "she" but we need to totally clear if only for the sake of the children.

[Melroses]

I agree. Children need clarity.

[SirVixofVixHall]

@Coyoacan

I'm not convinced that hormones and surgery are a suitable treatment for people with gender dysphoria.

And though I totally agree this the GC feminist point of view, I am much more concerned about the children being sucked into all this by what they are being taught in school and on the internet.

So it is all very well to say be kind and call the nice ones "she" but we need to totally clear if only for the sake of the children.

I agree.

[Stopthisnow]

I stopped listening when you veered off into conjecture about her motivation and a side swipe at her character. I think it's going for the player instead of the ball.

If I thought someone was using a manipulative argument to the detriment of women, whether I thought they were doing it for their own benefit, or had themselves been manipulated into adopting it due to trying to be kind, I would still point out the manipulative effect of what they were doing. I see a somewhat similarity in the ‘nice trans’ vs ‘nasty trans’ debate. Some people think males who are friendly to women should be considered ‘honorary women’, others think the person’s character should not even enter into it, that it is about the harm to females of including males in the category of women, rather than a question of character or how ‘nice’ a particular male is. Regardless of whether one believes stock has ‘good character’ and motivations or not, the end result of her argument is the same, detriment to women.

Moreover, if someone sees what they believe is manipulation, which results in women’s detriment, then I believe they should be free to point that out. Of course people can decide for themselves whether they agree or not, but should someone not point out what they see as manipulation resulting in detriment to women, in case they be accused of taking a side swipe at someone’s character? The question is who ultimately benefits, and who suffers detriment, from women who recognise manipulation saying silent about it?

[Stopthisnow]

QuentinBunbury I do not think it is at all reasonable to accept males into women's spaces and rights as a privilege. Some may consider it a humanist position, but I certainly don’t think it can be called a feminist position in any reasonable way, as it only benefits men to women’s detriment.

The fact is:

1. Most men do not have surgery and it is not a requirement.
   

1. AGPs can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
   

So it results in (often intact) AGP males being in women’s and lesbian’s spaces. No woman I have spoken to thinks that is reasonable when they are aware of this.

Moreover, I don’t think it is reasonable or ethical to ‘trans away the gay’ or operate on someone who has body dysmorphia about their sexed body, or to tell children they are born in the wrong, or to lead young people who often have various issues to believe that a solution to those issues is medical intervention, or to allow men with AGP to practice it full time on (often unwitting) women and members of the public.

I also don’t think it is at all reasonable or ethical that women and all of society should be tasked with propping up someone’s mental health, as part of treatment for their mental distress, by us and our spaces acting as validation stations.

I think what is reasonable and ethical is identifying and addressing the underlying reasons for why someone believes they should be the opposite sex with therapy. If a male wishes to undergo medical intervention to alleviate distress with their sexed body, it should be on the understanding that it does not come with the privilege of gaining female’s rights and spaces. I think that is the reasonable and ethical position.

[PlonitbatPlonit]

@Stopthisnow "Some people think males who are friendly to women should be considered ‘honorary women’"

Stock has a whole section of the book that addresses, and rejects, this model. Have you read the book?

[Stopthisnow]

Stock has a whole section of the book that addresses, and rejects, this model. Have you read the book?

Yes I have (skim) read it.

My point was whether one considers someone a ‘nice’ person or believes they have good motives, does not change whether their actions or behaviour is harmful or not. I wasn’t claiming Stock specifically was saying some males can be ‘honorary women’, I was comparing a similar situation where people minimise the harm of males claiming to be women, in order to not upset them or to be polite.

However, Stock says in the book: ‘I normally use ‘he’ and ‘him’ for trans men, ‘she’ and ‘her’ for trans women, and ‘they’ and ‘them’ for non-binary people, where preferred. Most of the time, I choose to immerse myself in a fiction about sex change for trans people, where it seems they would wish me to. (I choose to make an exception for trans women who assault or aggress women. So, for instance, I will not call Karen White ‘she’ nor ‘her’.)’

By using female pronouns for some males who identify as women, but not males who identify as women who commit crimes against women like Karen White, it seems she is treating some males as ‘honorary women’, whether she is aware of this or acknowledges it or not. Otherwise why make an exception for White?

Which men individual women are prepared to pretend are women (treat as honorary women) often depends on various criteria, e.g. males who have had genital surgery, males who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, males who are solely attracted to other males, males who have not committed sexual or violent crimes against women or children etc. The line in the sand changes based on how strong the individual woman’s boundaries are. Stock’s line seems to be males who ‘assault or aggress women’.

A woman who refuses to pretend any male is a woman in anyway, is enacting and maintaining strong firm boundaries with men, relaxing boundaries out of a desire to be seen as polite or kind is not healthy or beneficial to women imo.