Germaine Greer in 1989 'sex change is a lie'

[SapphosRock]

Interesting to read the parallels between 1989 and now. I doubt this would be published these days.

While I love Germaine Greer for all she has done for women, it's never OK to call any human 'it'

Agreed. I was shocked by the wording.

On the other hand, using the pronoun 'she' for any male who wants to be a she has lead to males running women's rape crisis services.

The person featured in the article is the 1989 version of Mridul Wadwha.

Well, I can’t argue with it. The tone is what wouldn’t fly today - it’s unashamedly robust and doesn’t really care about trampling over anyone’s feelings. I think “Be Kind” has infiltrated our written discourse too and gives an air of weakness that bad actors find easy to exploit.

Yes, The Independent was once an interesting newspaper, that lived up to its name.

Although referring to a human as 'it' is considered rude, it was once stylistically acceptable. 'It' has precedent for usage in mainstream literature as a sex neutral pronoun for people (where we would now use 'they'). Not common, but not pejorative. In the context of this article 'it' emphasises the caricature. Apart from that one occurrence, she refers to 'him' throughout.

Fascinating. Thank you so much.

“He behaved exactly like a sexual predator.”

When you think of how women have to walk a tightrope when they write on this topic that is like a blast of fresh air.

It's articles like that, and one of the books she wrote that also uses an incident of "it" as a pronoun, that give transactivists their ammunition.

GG is a transphobic (insert misogynistic slur of choice) who deserves to DIAF or choke on my erect male phallus etc.
They need to say all that for fear people might actually read what's being said by feminists and see it makes perfect sense.

It's a real shame no one bothers actually reading and applying reading comprehension anymore.
Regurgitated hyperbole is where we're at.

The wording is a bit but then we are used to pandering these days. She makes so much sense. She saw it all coming.

I’m sure many know this already, but her views, which have always been consistent on this point, cost her her position at what was the all-female Newnham College until a trans academic took a role.

I think that one "it" at the start is because she wants you to find out it's a man by her description and "he" would pre-empt this but "she" would give the wrong impression.

It's a shame that "they" wasn't used.

Most of the rest of the argument is excellent, although I did at her talking about "women's other erotic relationships, with their babies..." wtf?!

It’s so sad that we are no longer able to be so blunt about the reality of the situation. Mainstream media must now dance around the subject for fear of being cancelled.

I miss the old days when 1984 was still considered fiction.

The “it” is a red herring and a gift to the TRAs. They can try and haul us over the coals for perceived linguistic errors to divert away attention from the real, material issue that is male violence and men in women’s spaces.

We are so caught up in trying to defend/police language that the real issues don’t get the attention they deserve. Are people really so fragile that we get upset over how how someone we’ve never met dares to refer to us? Obviously the pronoun argument suggests that many people today are just that.

Me - I’ve been called far worse to my face. Still here. Words don’t matter as much as reality.

'bureaucratic moves were afoot'

Indeed they were.

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Wow. That woman sure can write!

I've always admired & respected Prof. Greer, even when I don't agree with her. She has a tough, clear-eyed intelligence.

Greer right as always

I didat her talking about "women's other erotic relationships, with their babies..." wtf?!

I went off GG when I heard her claim that all men want to have sex with their daughters. I think it's a vile thought and this shows she's had some dodgy ideas about this since the 80s.

I have been told before by a father, that any man who said they didn't want to have sex with their daughter is a liar. I know this is not true, but I think it's sickenly common.

@SomepeopleareTERFSgetoverit
While I agree Dr Padman shouldn’t have been appointed (it broke College Statutes AND Women’s Colleges absolutely continue to be necessary & important even now, let alone in the mid-to-late-90’s) Prof Greer resigned as a matter of principle & took up a post at Warwick. She also remained a Bye-Fellow; & returned to Newnham in the early noughties to stalk the halls looking terrifying teach. I think it was withdrawn in the 2015 row over her speech at the Union where she said there’s no such thing as transphobia.

In 2018 Varsity criticised Newnham & Lucy Cavendish for not following Murray Edwards regarding prospective students & self-ID. Newnham’s JCR Chair is all for self-ID; apparently she does not represent those students who are allowed to attend because Newnham is a Women’s College. Nor the students who apply there because a history of sexual abuse &/or assault by male peers means the idea of living around them for 3 years is impossible & overwhelming; a Women’s College offers a safe space to live in & withdraw to while they negotiate mixing/building relationships with men on their own terms. Newnham takes a large percentage of state educated students & they’re one of the Colleges offering the new Foundation Year. There are absolutely people who will seek to take advantage because they believe that their places are being being stolen from them - the Head of Stowe claiming Oxbridge are discriminating against private school students as the Nazis discriminated against the Jews being a particularly notorious example. Anyone who thinks that nobody would go to those lengths is someone with no experience of Oxbridge [admissions].

Newnham’s policy remains the same (it’s included in the FAQ for applicants on the College website - not having shifted over the last couple of years suggests they’re unlikely to fling themselves after Murray Edwards.

The admission of trans women disadvantages exactly the people that Women’s Colleges were created for. I genuinely do not understand why trans women wish to attend Women’s Colleges other than to validate their identity - so unless Murray Edwards, particularly, is possessed of some other (important, compelling, illuminating) information: what the hell are they playing at, reducing women to NPCs who exist to support, serve & cosset the interlopers who seek to colonise a space they have no right to?

It's a shame that "they" wasn't used.

Thirty years ago, "they" was still considered a lazy, almost casually illiterate pronoun for singular use. People, at least in my neck of the woods, were snotty about it. Almost as bad as starting a story with "There was this guy, yeah..."

“It” is popular as a pronoun amongst some secondary school children so I hear. Perhaps we need to stop viewing “it” in derogatory terms?

Thanks for the additional detail, @NitroNine. I agree that, as in so many other areas of life, “inclusivity” for trans women here results in excluding other women including those from consevative religious backgrounds and any woman who would prefer not to live in mixed-sex accommodation.

Newnham’s policy remains the same (it’s included in the FAQ for applicants on the College website - not having shifted over the last couple of years suggests they’re unlikely to fling themselves after Murray Edwards.

On a point of detail, there is a significant difference between Newnham and ME - the latter wasn't strictly an all women's college anyway. Its fellows (and i think postgrads, not sure) are and afaik have always been mixed sex.
Whether their change in policy has in practice lead to the admitting of any TW undergrads I don't know.