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

I couldnt raise the pitch of my voice without losing power

And that highlights that you understand the power that a male voice has - literally and figuratively. As well as male socialisation that goes with that.

Do you feel that you would lose influence if you either had a thready or quiet voice or if your voice was high pitched? Do you actually understand how many women have experienced discrimination in their life because they have a voice that does not convey 'power'?

Because, to someone who has experienced this discrimination, you have neatly encapsulated the issue using the turn of phrase that you have. Whether you care to admit publicly that that is what you intended to say or not, I do believe that you understand this.

weebisom, thank you, that is an excellent post on biological 'essentialism'. Such a clear and detailed explanation of the conflation of biological distinctions and restrictions.

I couldnt raise the pitch of my voice without losing power

That is a genuine female experience Robin. At least you acknowledge that women are disadvantaged and that you have chosen not to take on that negative aspect of womanhood. Women don't have the same privilege of course.

@WeeBisom

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 .

This post, I think deserves to be quoted many times!

Haven't read the article yet but, on Kathleen's reasonableness and caveated use of language, she writes that way because she's a philosopher, doing what philosophers do.

It's up to journalists to ask the precise, incisive, cutting to the point questions, chosen to drag apparent absurdity, contradiction and self-interest blinking into the light of day.

The long-piece discursive format can often feel like two people talking across each other but it does expose their trains of thought somewhat.

Robin, I'd also like to thank you for engaging. I do think discourse is essential if we're ever going to find ways to accomodate transwomen without impinging on the rights of women.

I must admit that it is always very interesting to see these transitioned males who agree to debate and then immediately retract on twitter when that debate has been published/broadcast.

And then there is the crazy, crazy antics of some self-identified social media influencers who happen to be transitioned who performatively declare that women will never debate and then when they are inundated with offers, make the limitations so unbelievably biased or difficult that they think they have won when women walk away.

Yes, there are debates happening. But the antics happening around these debates are very enlightening in showing just why nodebate was pushed in the first place. Because there is a scarcity of scientific or proven evidence to support a large % of the arguments. No robust foundations to fall back on in statistics or proven facts. It all relies on emotional manipulation.

And really..... Malta?? Malta is being used as a great example? And France? Where the lowering of the age of consent came about because of the involvement of 'intellectuals' such as Foucault and it is only now that those children harmed feel they have the support to speak out???? Where there is even greater misogyny and impediments for women to report their harassment, assaults and rapes?? Who the FUCK would use France as an example? If women feel they are ignored about their attacks, why on earth would anyone think Frances' statistics and reports would be showing anything like a true representation on what is happening.

And Ireland?? Barbie Kardashian didn't happen hey? And Amnesty didn't publicly state that women who held certain views deserved no political representation? And Ireland is another country with a great record on women's rights?

Honestly, what world do activists live in that they think these are great examples? We see these mentioned constantly. It is really quite eye opening.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

If you are worried about losing power in your voice, there is a recognition of the value of that power. Male puberty, as you say, changes your voice it changes it to a more powerful tone. Whilst this is considered more valuable, it is clear that this disadvantages females, who therefore need protection from that disadvantage.

Whatever

Whatever

This is either a recognition that my point is correct or a demonstration of an unwillingness to debate and discuss. It's the level of conversation my children used at 8.

what did you think of Kathleen's points, Robin?

That's a bit rude and dismissive Robin. I thought you were here in good faith. I'd be very disappointed to hear that you, as a transwomen, don't care much about the female experience of biological women. That's not true, is it?

Why would you engage just to not engage?

Weird.

Do I look bovvered?

@foxgoosefinch

Do I look bovvered?

Talk to the hand 'cos the face ain't listening.

Women who's voice deepens after menopause are not considered more authoritative.

@Thelnebriati

Women who's voice deepens after menopause are not considered more authoritative.

Their voice does not deepen much and they certainly don't sound like men. No-one is saying that deep voice is the only variable.

Robin, your paragraph about puberty blockers was disingenuous.

The court of appeal did not rule that children are Gillick competent to decide about puberty blockers, it ruled that the decision around competence and subsequent understanding of informed consent can be made by the treating team rather than the court. Gillick competence doesn’t not mean children can automatically consent, it means they need to be assessed to see if they are competent to be able to consent.

Can a 12 year old child consent fully to the understanding that if they start puberty blockers they will progress to wrong sex hormones, never through puberty, and be left infertile, have reduced sexual function, reduced bone density, and a myriad of other health problems throughout life?

You state you might have led a much less troubled life, but if you had been given puberty blockers you would not have the voice that is important to your work, not have your family, and never experienced adequate sexual function. Is that a price you would have exchanged? Why not state that?

You used the term “wrong puberty”. There is only one puberty, the one for one’s sex. Puberty blocker treatment decision is either normal puberty, or no puberty at all. Why weren’t you clear on this?

Why use the term “consider their options” when you know that more than 98% of those who go on puberty blockers continue onto wrong sex hormones and that once puberty blockers are started that decision is made?

Thanks Robin for engaging on this thread. Very interesting.

Can a 12 year old child consent fully to the understanding that if they start puberty blockers they will progress to wrong sex hormones, never through puberty, and be left infertile, have reduced sexual function, reduced bone density, and a myriad of other health problems throughout life?

In my opinion no person who has not got to the age to experience full-on sexual desire can make a capacitous decision to impact on that. Given how many children 'do not want children' and then go on to change their mind, I also don't believe that any child can make the decision to end their fertility. Children see themselves as invincible so also cannot make a reasoned decision to impact their health in the longer term. IMHO allowing children to make these decisions is neglectful. The very fact that we consider it shows a societal obsession with bodies and a false belief that one's identity is inevitably shaped by one's body. I believe this is the natural progression of the growing obsession with plastic surgery and idealised notions of beauty and I think we'd do much better for ourselves and our young people to properly call that out and try and move to a more caring society. I don't make the laws though, sadly.

Has anyone been to The Regency Cafe in Westminster? The lady behind the counter has a seriously powerful voice!

Of course there are outliers with some women having much more powerful voices and some men having much less powerful voices. The point is really about the norms not the outliers. Some black people have powerful jobs and earn way more than some white people - that doesn't mean society is not racist.

@WeeBisom - I think what is going on with essentialism is that they are using it, as with other words they employ, in the same way we might talk about race essentialism.

Race and biological essentialism are both real things, but they don't map on to each other perfectly given that race is a construct to a much more significant degree than is the case with sexual reproductive categories. So with race essentialism we don't only say, biological racism is bad, we can say that race as we understand it isn't even a concept that exists in the same way in every culture or is even present in all. There are serious thinkers who do and have made the argument that the way we destroy racial bigotry is by losing the concept of race altogether and that so long as it exists we will have racism. In fact that the who purpose of the concept of race is to enable racism.

I think that's where they are trying to go with the way they are using "biological essentialism."

Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. The lady in the cafe has such a powerful voice that people comment on it. It's mentioned in the reviews. It's a feature of the cafe. If it were a man shouting the orders nobody would even notice. Yes, she's an outlier, yet her volume and power are pretty normal for a man. That's the point, really

Hello Robin I appreciate you’re here and answering questions. May I ask one? You say:

“It would all have been so much easier had I been able to avoid male puberty.”

If you had avoided male puberty the treatment would have rendered you infertile. I don’t know if you have children or not, but if you do, how do you reconcile that statement and your past ability to father children?

Ah I see @Masdintle - the exception that proves the rule. It is a good point and the reaction to is shows the advantage men have.