Transactivism is sexist and delusional

[CampervanKween]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/27/trans-activism-sexist-delusional/?t=qB8GMvp3NoeiHkfvRKfg9Q&s=09

Very good comprehensive article in the Telegraph today. To read it click on the link then go into airplane mode on your phones.

You can also use 12ft.io to get round their paywall - doesn't work on the Times. Thanks for the link.

Wow, the headline alone is quite something.

I managed to click the link and read the whole article without doing anything else and I'm not a subscriber.

I am not a JP fan. I think he has plenty of ideas worthy of discussion but I just don't like him, although he does have a great turn of phrase and is very quotable.

However, that article is a must read. He's is boiling with rage about how professionals in the fields of medicine and psychology have been brow beaten into abdicating their moral and ethical responsibilities. He sounds full of contempt for them and there is no denying they have earned it.

It's quite a long article and I will need to read it again at a more leisurely pace to really appreciate it.

Thanks for posting. Perhaps the tide really is turning.

An article by Jorden Peterson … the degenerate drug addict who is in the process of losing his license to practise as a registered psychologist.

Truly a man for our times.

Can someone post a link or an archived piece, please?

Ah… playing the man not the ball. Wonderful.

By all means engage with the substance of what he says but ‘don’t listen to him, he’s an X’ is just ridiculous.

Play the ball, not the man.

Ad hominem attacks are so nethuns, darling xxx

If you post whole articles, and breach copyright, the post and sometimes the whole thread will be deleted @Needanewnamebeingwatched .

Here come the Ad Homs. Peterson is not my cuppa tea. Neither is Brendan O'Neill. But maybe you could try addressing the arguments?

I think it's an OK article. There are lot of good points in there but, as usual with JP, he has to show us how clever he is, and the resulting wordiness obscures his argument.

There is a link to an archived copy here just in case the C+P posted is deleted.

twitter.com/CforWomenUK/status/1640441788807651329?s=20

Good article. Uses a lot of long words to state the obvious, but I did like this bit

This is what being a “woman” has come to. What constitutes “female” has now been reduced to “any human with a hole, however produced, that a man can use as a substitute or replacement for masturbation or dyadic intercourse.” That definition is the ultimate in sexism. That is far and away a more reductionist and derogatory conceptualisation of woman than anything previously foisted on women by even the most oppressive of patriarchal and misogynistic tyrants.

Referring to activism on behalf of tran people as ‘narcissistic compassion’ might be a useful framing. Especially for people making careers out of it.

Can I ask why people have to preface commentary with - I don't like him or Brendan O'Neill but -

I am often left wondering about that sort of approach. It concurs on the one hand but it leaves a doubt in one's mind about what you are actually saying.

How can we really like journalists or commentators whilst having zero idea of how they are as people. To be fair I have listened to both Jordan Petersen and Brendan O'Neill. I think they articulate evidenced arguments. I haven't a clue how they are as people so why would I comment on that? I'm not trying to be cantankerous, I just genuinely don't understand this approach. It happens all the time here.

Don’t hold back Jordan, say what you really think 😂

It really is sexist and I'm glad the term is being used more - I sort of wish it was someone else than Peterson though.

Simply because I want more uk commentary stating this. And also some just dismiss him as a twat.

I can't read it but the headline is spot on.

I squeeze the term sexist in as much as I can as people don't seem to make that link and no one wants to be seen as sexist.

He's absolutely right

We need to fight the long words of academic queer theory with longer words of sanity.

It will work for some who need big words.

That's how queer theory has become some sort of holy grail of academia.

Because otherwise you get posters trying to side-track with ad hominem attacks on the author. As - predictably - has already happened on this thread.

This is what being a “woman” has come to. What constitutes “female” has now been reduced to “any human with a hole, however produced, that a man can use as a substitute or replacement for masturbation or dyadic intercourse.” That definition is the ultimate in sexism. That is far and away a more reductionist and derogatory conceptualisation of woman than anything previously foisted on women by even the most oppressive of patriarchal and misogynistic tyrants

Actually that's fuckin brilliant.

That's how IW claims womanhood.

Can I ask why people have to preface commentary with - I don't like him or Brendan O'Neill but

JP has said a bunch of stuff that I don’t agree with at all. That’s why I experience a degree of cognitive dissonance when nodding along to anything written by him. I also consider him to be in general pompous, verbose and wilfully obscure and baroque in his arguments

I’ll have a crack at reading this though!

It’s a point made by Germaine Greer in The Whole Woman in the 90s.

I think this article is fucking brilliant.
I have long thought the unspoken switch from gender as social category to gender as subjective identification, without anyone actually making a case for it, was dubious. It’s great to see him putting that into a wider context and challenging it so trenchantly.

And by loads of 2nd wave feminists in the 70s.

In fairness, I don't think JP is presenting it as an original thought - and he is reaching an audience who probably don't read a lot of Andrea Dworkin.