Grauniad retweet an Observer review of Helen Joyce's books and Kathleen Stock's

[bellinisurge]

twitter.com/guardianbooks/status/1416704817045524480?s=21

Well well well. Seeing the writing on the wall, are we?

My mistake. It's a Grauniad review. Disingenuous little dears who've stoked this fire.

Well that’s a snidey little review isn’t it. It’s quite clear that Hinscliff is irritated by Helen Joyce’s book & it’s pesky unarguable facts and so resorts to saying it would be easier to agree if she wasn’t so cross about it all. Stock is praised for saying the same thing but being kinder

But then frankly I’m amazed the guardian reviewed it at all & I bet no one wanted the job!!

In my fantasy, they are softening up their TRA -captured readers for Actual Debate. Or maybe their advertising team is getting a sniff of changing moods from Sponsors. Always gonna be money that turns the tide.

I think that's not bad for a Guardian review

I'm wondering whether the Guardian bookshop would be a useful place to buy both books from, to demonstrate there is support and interest in gender critical views?

I like this piece. I don't agree with all of it, but:

• it acknowledges that there is a conflict of rights
• it asks people to try to talk to each other and find a compromise, which is also what Helen Joyce has asked for
• it's written by someone who is clearly not gender critical, but acknowledges that trans women are not literally biological women - it's an "immersive fiction" that requires then to "deny biological facts"

This is huge progress. This is someone who disagrees with gender critical feminism engaging seriously with our arguments and starting to ask what an acceptable middle ground position looks like for her.

"No debate" is truly over.

The review irritated me in the first para with the suggestion it was the threat of women boycotting the RA that caused them to restock Jess de Wahl's work. The issue was that people were pointing out that the RAs attitude was wrong in law and hugely hypocritical and sexist.

Interesting review. Hinsliff seems to be upset by the section on autogynephilia in Joyce’s book.

There’s a long history of trans activists being upset by people publicly discussing autogynephilia; Joyce goes into that too. But it’s generally MTF activists who find it upsetting. I wonder why Hinsliff zeroed in on that (though obviously without using the actual word, which might provoke the readers to ask questions) to complain about.

It was also a review that seemed to say 'read these books if you are already GC but if you're not they'll upset you so dont' - does Hinsliff have splinters now?

At the end they say readers could support the Guardian/Observer by ordering the books through the link?

@OneEpisode

At the end they say readers could support the Guardian/Observer by ordering the books through the link?

But do I want to financially reward the Guardian given its anti-women views?

Just read it. Used to think GH was one of those journos who committed to having an opinion on something. She's never "been kind" to anyone she rips apart in her usual columns. That review was incredibly mealy-mouthed.

Not too bad for the Grauniad imo. I think awareness of the 'immersive fiction'/ 'legal fiction' thing is really important. I suspect that so many people hold those opposing views in their minds (that TWAW but that men cannot literally be women), but deliberately avoiding looking at them too closely so that they don't have to admit to themselves that it's doublethink.

It takes something like the Staniland question or the question of whether you'd really stand by TWAW 'for relationship purposes' to shake people out of it, and even then a lot will cling to their denial.

If you fundamentally reject that premise, neither book is for you.

Can’t really articulate what I’m trying to say but do book reviews usually say stuff like this? Are Guardian readers not up for being challenged or engaging their brains?

Can’t really articulate what I’m trying to say but do book reviews usually say stuff like this? Are Guardian readers not up for being challenged or engaging their brains?

To be fair, if they are TRAs they probably aren't. That line in the review seems like an honest acknowledgement of what sort of person "fundamentally rejects that premise" and what would happen if they accidentally read one of these books.

If people were able to use accurate and legally correct (in UK) language they'd likely find that the solutions much easier and their perception of the conflicts changed,

(extract)
But what if being able to use women’s changing rooms, rather than fearing violence in the men’s, is very much an issue of “safety and social acceptance” to many men – albeit one that may leave some women feeling less safe? Refusing to acknowledge these fundamental conflicts precludes finding solutions.

Hm. It's a start, but I found some of that review quite hard to follow.

And it's managed to piss off everyone, so far, by the look of it. This is the danger of fence sitting, I suppose.

twitter.com/GuardianBooks/status/1416704817045524480

Are Guardian readers not up for being challenged or engaging their brains?

Don't know about Guardian readers, but some Tweeters can't even commit to reading the REVIEW until they're assured that it accuses Joyce's book of being antisemitic (it doesn't). Some idealogues do appear to just keep going and going, apparently not realising or caring that their own comments read as antisemitic. (You'd think Labour at least would have learned something from the Corbyn debacle.)

@TheHandmadeTails

If you fundamentally reject that premise, neither book is for you.

Can’t really articulate what I’m trying to say but do book reviews usually say stuff like this? Are Guardian readers not up for being challenged or engaging their brains?

That struck me as really odd as well. I don't usually read book reviews in the Guardian, so don't have much to compare to. It seemed strangely directive rather than informative.

Just read this review - its not bad. Two points of contention for me: But for gender critical feminists the freedom to say what they actually think about the immutability of biological sex is the whole point. This suggests that its only GC feminists who hold this view - unlikely. Second: she talks of a possible way forward: which might lie in accepting that people are who they say they are. I suggest: accepting that people BELIEVE that they are who they say they are, which was surely the point of the Forstater case.

@WorriedWishingWell

I'm wondering whether the Guardian bookshop would be a useful place to buy both books from, to demonstrate there is support and interest in gender critical views?

I'm surprised Guardian stateside staffers are still breathing air considering the extreme violence inflicted on them by the Guardian stocking the Stock and Joyce books.

"As the former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, vilified for arguing that trans athletes shouldn’t compete in female sporting categories"

Why why why has "trans" become shorthand for "trans women"? Ffs of course trans people should compete in female sports... if they're female!

All this noise about inclusivity and trans men get left behind and forgotten about every time.

How Hinsliff could read could read the 'Back in the Box' chapter of Joyce's book, which clearly and logically sets out how regressive and sexist trans ideology is, and then write a review like that is mind boggling.

Is she cool with the genderbread man? Cool with children being taught that these things 'look masculine'

• rational
• tough
• takes charge

and these 'look feminine'

• emotional

-soft -takes part

'cos I thought even a third wave feminist would be able to spot that kind of bullshit

But for gender critical feminists the freedom to say what they actually think about the immutability of biological sex is the whole point.

I don’t think any other group that has been denied basic civil rights is still routinely asked to pretend it doesn’t exist.

I don’t think any other group of people are required to pretend they don’t have a distinct and easily recognisable physical condition.

The bigger question is why some women are so happy with the pretence.