Prospect Magazine: Kathleen Stock v Robin Moira White

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Great discussion.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/gender-wars-two-opposing-perspectives-on-the-trans-and-womens-rights-debate

Gender wars: two opposing perspectives on the trans and women’s rights debate
A lawyer and philosopher respond to seven propositions—ranging from single-sex spaces to puberty blockers for children

The attempt to use racial metaphors and arguments to bolster gender ideology always ends up as a huge mistake - comparing feminists to colonisers and the “trans umbrella” to people of colour. Except the obvious reversal going on in that analogy becomes very clear very quickly, and really really undermines the TRA argument.

@aliasundercover

At the other end of the spectrum, while I look female

er ... ok ...

Yeah have to admit I did google Robin, and I wouldn't be quite so certain...

Though their facial surgeon did do a good job I agree.

Also, sorry, I have to rant about this part:
"Biological essentialism (the idea that only chromosomes matter) fails at every practical hurdle. How many readers have had their chromosomes tested? Do you have to have your genitals checked before using the supermarket toilets?"

For the thousandth time...biological essentialism is NOT the idea that 'only chromosomes matter'. Biological essentialism is the view that females are inferior by virtue of their biology, that women's XX chromosomes causes and explains female inferiority. Feminists say that women's bodies and reproductive capacity does NOT inevitably relegate them to a lower social order. Women are not less capable than men because of their bodies. Feminists reject biological essentialism.

There's a lazy idea going around that biological essentialism means categorising people by virtue of biological features, which means that it is essentialist to group together disabled people, black people, children and the old. Obviously, there is nothing 'essentialist' at all about saying that disabled people are disabled because their bodies do not function properly. Similarly, saying that women are female is not essentialist!

And let's get to the second stupid argument - you haven't had your chromosomes checked so you don't know what they are, therefore chromosomes can't matter for classification into sex. As any first year philosophy student knows, some properties are deep and hidden and cannot be tracked or detected on the surface level. It took advanced scientific research to discover the true nature of water, that it is H20. It would be utterly absurd to say ' you don't know that water is h20 because you haven't tested its chemical makeup." The reason that is absurd is because we don't have to test the chemical makeup of every clear liquid we encounter to know it's water. Instead, what we do, is we track 'water (h20)' by following reliable surface properties such as 'clear' 'liquid' 'not viscous' 'comes out of a tap.' We are able to reliably know that something is h20 because other properties are attached to its deeper nature. So if we see a clear liquid in a lake, we can be 99.9% sure it is water as opposed to poison simply because those features track h20 so well.

It's the same with sex. There are surface features which track the biological chromosomal makeup of a person with almost 100% accuracy. If a person has given birth, if they have periods, if they have breasts, vaginas, if they have a certain appearance (secondary sexual characteristics) that is an almost certain indication that they have XX chromosomes, especially when the features are combined. So you don't have to test someone to find out their genetics because you can reliably track the underlying sex of people by virtue of these surface features. We are remarkably good at it. I know this is long and tedious, but I am just so fed up of these glib, superficial responses coming from the genderist side. They are such weak, fallacious responses and they never seem to stop coming. I wonder sometimes if they are trying to change the meaning of biological essentialism by fiat .

@SomepeopleareTERFSgetoverit

“Most of us pass by you unnoticed.” Really, no.

I find this a really odd comment. "Unnoticed" how? Gender is supposed to be an internal, innate feeling so of course you can't "notice" it and see if you have a feeling that is "supposed" to go with a female body or the sort of feeling that is "supposed" to go with a male body.

I still don't understand how "sex characteristics" can be "brought into line" with a gender. What, specifically, about gender incorporates sex characteristics? We are repeatedly told they are separate.

I have addressed questions in this vein to Robin on here. Robin has not replied, to my knowledge.

@Campervan69

So is Robin saying that a male voice adds gravitas and is more likely to be listened to? So benefits from male privilege here and not prepared to give this up?

Isn't it very difficult to alter a male-gone-through-puberty voice to make it higher? I seem to remember Keira Bell saying that she is now stuck with a deep male-sounding voice. So perhaps the "I haven't done anything about it" is White-speak for "I can't do anything about it".

(And the surgery in Thailand seemed to me to have been genital?)

RMW re the Census:
A better solution would have been to “reverse engineer” data on biological sex where it is genuinely needed by using the gender identity question to reverse the answer to the sex question for those individuals who answered yes to the question on gender identity.

So being trans simply means being male with a 'woman' gender, or being female with a 'man' gender?
That's the only way 'reverse-engineering' would work (and of course, continues to rely on the assumption that "gender" both is and isn't equivalent to "sex").

But - aren't there over 100 genders? What about agender people? Why is Robin trying to erase these minorities' identity?

Isn't it very difficult to alter a male-gone-through-puberty voice to make it higher?

Well there is voice feminisation surgery. If someone wants to pass that much, surely it would be a consideration alongside the facial feminisation surgery.

Shooting canards and wheeling them out?

I had always imagined that being a barrister required the ability to express yourself clearly and precisely.

@EricCartmansUnderpants

Isn't it very difficult to alter a male-gone-through-puberty voice to make it higher?

Well there is voice feminisation surgery. If someone wants to pass that much, surely it would be a consideration alongside the facial feminisation surgery.

And a lot of vocal coaching. www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/voice-feminizing-therapy-and-surgery/about/pac-20470545

Perhaps it's best if this thread didn't go too far down the road of any individual's presentation or speculation about it. There are good points made about what is said in the article.

Ran out of steam quite fast.

I thought both answering could have done with being punchier.

I don't know this publication though so I don't know anything about their style, readership etc.

I also thought eh???? Diaspora? Youwhat now? Surprised that something that jumps out like that to the reader wasn't noticed my Moira, no one had a sqiz at it before submitted?

@WeeBisom Great thread, thank you.

Post even

Yes. Please keep speaking up Moira. In your nice manly voice that you have chosen to retain because it gives you are professional advantage.

You and eddie izzard would get on like a house on fire.

Pick and mix womanhood.

Both viewpoints contained things that were just asking to be challenged.

This bit Moira made my jaw drop-
'And perhaps a greater proportion of trans people face discrimination than those with protected characteristics such as race or sex, which have been protected for longer'.

Yowzers. Woah. Sex well of course would say that. Race? Bold move. IMO not a clever one.

Note: Kathleen is brilliant, vv brave. Not just head above parapet but standing on it with a neon hat.

I am not as brave. So this is my thoughts on the first few questions I read. Nothing more.

There's a lot of different issues covered.
Imo that reduces impact.
As I say I don't know who reads this site though.

Eg
Raising porn is red flag to bull.
AGP not well known readers may get confused/ think implying all perves.

The sex exists bit contains a LOT of info.

In general we need to be punchier don't we? And step away from the inclination to play nice, engage in loads of nonsensical arguments.

Most people don't know any of that. If I didn't know the background I would find the apologetic multiple points confusing I think.

Eg

'according to one plausible account, what determines which sex category an individual falls into is whether the developing human is on one of two pathways, either to produce small gametes (male) or large ones (female), even if that pathway is later disrupted through variation or disease.'

Plausible account?
Including disclaimer variation or disease?

We're so used to getting what about clownfish? And PROVE to me there are two sexes because gobbledygook science. That we do it knee jerk, get in first. Try to get defence to drivel in first.

I know why we all do it. Because of 1000 near identical conversations.

I do think it could introduce dought.
Eg
The bit where she said about egg sperm, plausible? She's not sure herself?
Disease and variations. Like what? How much happens? Why is it important enough to mention? Must be important. Why though?

I think through socialisation and experiences of (trying to) disagree with men in real life.

We , well I know I am, prone to certain things. Eg
Bracketing point with soft language. I understand where you're coming from but...
Arguing even nonsensical things chucked at us, putting effort into what said, how say it, check for any things that might need further context/ explanation.
If there's a post about some bad stuff, somewhere in the world, in the news, about a poster. (Usually not relevant to thread, or prompted in any way). Generally ensure express upset, sorrow, horror, etc. If it's personal to poster comments following much gentler argued.
Automatically address things raised and go on defence when thing raised is bollocks.
Tend to stick to direction of conversation responding to points raised.
Etc etc.

When do we EVER get treated with anything like that respect, honest engagement? Very very rarely.
It's all convoluted points which are totally dropped whenever and totally change to some other point. Ignoring any and all questions if don't want to answer. Throwing random accusations. Pretending someone has said something they haven't and dispute that.
Etc etc.

I haven't been able to stop I'm s sucker for derailers etc.

Need to turn it around.

Why do you think there are only two sexes?
Why do you think there are more?
We're not clownfish. Human. Why do you think there are more than two sexes?
Etc.

Sport mixed cos no physical differences.
Really? Your whole life you've never noticed any overall differences?
That's very unusual. Have you not noticed anything during your life at all?
When you see in the news reports about women being attacked by men. What's your take, if no physical differences?

And just not be moved from asking the questions and not being sidetracked. Keep asking.

I dunno. What do you all think?

I found the comment about Robin’s voice interesting. Robin says that they know it wouldn’t be appropriate for Robin to answer phones at a women’s domestic violence call Centre.
I found this striking as, some of you probably know , in Scotland there is a trans woman, without a GRC, presently CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

Prospect magazine wrote an awful piece a few months back full of total gender woo. Do subscribes and I'd loved the magazine until that point. It made me realise I shouldn't necessarily trust their articles about areas I don't know much about. This is really heartening. I might start reading it again!

I quite accept that I should not be the volunteer on the phone taking the first-contact calls at a centre dealing with domestic violence against women.

The obvious problem being that for some men who claim they are women, taking the first-contact calls at a centre dealing with domestic violence against women is exactly what they want to do, and those men don’t give a moment’s thought to the women involved.

And in acknowledging this point, Robin also perhaps misses the fact that every single person who grew up male is likely to have a wholly incomplete understanding of all the ways women are affected by male invaders. Allowing those males to self-govern in their choice of which female spaces they should be allowed in can therefore never work.

When do we EVER get treated with anything like that respect, honest engagement? Very very rarely.

There is a double standard in play. Not just here but on all social media. Woman are expected to be nice, kind, polite and respectful whilst men abuse them and seek to remove their rights. This position is forced by the majority of platforms that host the conversation. (Men and #,bekind allies.) It's really unpleasant. Men want the best best bits of being female and male. As well as rejecting aspects such as, for example, female voices, they are supported to reject the abuse and demand respect, a privilege that is not offered to women.

WeeBisom

I wonder sometimes if they are trying to change the meaning of biological essentialism by fiat.

Well said.

It's nice to see someone tearing it to pieces with such skill. I'm finding it so frustrating to be told such tosh as that I am the biological essentialist for thinking words have meanings, by people who are so wedded to sex role stereotypes that they think following the stereotypes of the other sex makes you that sex!

Applause from me for WeeBisom's post too. Brilliant.

@NotBadConsidering

At the other end of the spectrum, while I look female, I sound male as I have done little to alter my speaking voice, as it is something I rely on in my job as a barrister.

Robin highlighting how sex based differences give males advantage while generally arguing that sex isn’t as important as gender. I’m always amazed this person is a barrister.

Robin thinks Robin looks female?