Mary Beard in the Herald.

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23825192.mary-beard-scottish-independence-trans-rights-romans/

'On trans rights, Beard says: “I don’t fully understand why, more than anything else, it’s proved to be an issue we find very hard to discuss. Why did this, of all issues, become so toxic? There may be, and I’m sure there are, some transphobes, trans-haters, out there, but most people I think aren’t in that category. Many of them are puzzled, worried, about where this leaves cis women.
“Those are utterly reasonable questions that we ought to be able to raise, but that’s proved impossible, and I’m not clear why … I want to explore what’s preventing us managing to have a conversation about this.”
Beard says she’d like to make a programme about the difficulties around discussing the issue, but adds: “I’m probably too much of a coward. That’s a shame as we need to find a way in which this can be talked about because people get terribly damaged on all sides - not just one side.”
As a feminist, does she perceive a clash between ‘trans rights and women’s rights’? “I hope there isn’t,” she says. “It’s presented as if there is, and I can see where people are coming from, but what we ought to be thinking is ‘how do we square the circle here?’. I hope in 20 years time we aren’t talking like this.”'

🙄

I have been feeling very mixed about the whole question of public profile over the last few days. On the one hand we have the sickening, violent plot against the life of Holly Willoughby, for simply daring to be a woman in the public eye. On the other we have Mary Beard who gets the positive benefit of a different kind of public profile, in her willingness to take on serious and intellectual questions, yet also wants to avoid the downside of a public profile by swerving this question. I am not sure what to think…

I am going to buy myself a copy of ‘So you’ve been publicly shamed’ and see if that answers any questions.

Yes, I agree. We know that anyone not gung ho TRA is probably nursing a few doubts, because there's no reason not to cheerlead for hashtag trans rights in terms of publicity and exposure. And up to this point they have just avoided it, but they seem to be having to grapple with it at least in part, even if they then pretend it's all just too complex and they don't see why people are fighting.

I mean, taking what she says without reading anything more into it, i a way she's not wrong. It is bizarre that this issue is so weird and impossible to discuss normally.

I don't actually think it's totally different from other types of id politics, which also are quite happy to freak out about people who challenge their basis, rather than attempting to engage with the argument. But the current state of society on all of these things is totally and completely bizarre and it is difficult to wrap one's head around why.

I can see why she'd feel that she must be missing something.

Has Jon Ronson ever said anything about all this? I often think about that excellent book which I read when it came out... it needs an update I think!

I think she totally gets it, and is quite rightly asking why we can't talk about it and come up with practical solutions. She's choosing to take this tack rather than jumping in on one side or the other. I think this is entirely reasonable, personally.

Better women than mb have lost their careers for this and, as her career is pretty bomb-proof Imo, so, yes, I judge her harshly.

Bit harsh - she's an elderly lady and if she feels that she can't cope with the aggression either to her or to her or to her much older husband I think we should respect that. SHe really has no obligation to enter into this fight if she is too afraid to do so. Says a lot about the trans activists that they are so vicious they might worry her

I hear what you say, but, speaking as someone her age, 68 isn't elderly. As long as you're financially solvent and have your health, it's a good age to be. For a start, you don't have to care about public opinion.
If mb chooses not to take a stand on this, like so many others, that's up to her.
But, as I've said, other women have suffered in this cause and, yes, I do judge her.

"Many of them are puzzled, worried, about where this leaves cis women. Those are utterly reasonable questions that we ought to be able to raise, but that’s proved impossible, and I’m not clear why … I want to explore what’s preventing us managing to have a conversation about this.”

I think this indicates she totally gets it, and I think she's sticking her neck out by saying this. She could have refused to discuss it at all or just given some vague soundbyte.

She's just choosing to take a questioning approach rather than going in all guns blazing. Whether that's her natural approach as a historian, or to protect herself, or a bit of each, I don't know, but I'm not going to criticise her for it. I actually agree with her that the issue of not being allowed to discuss this is perhaps more critical than the topic itself.

Let's hope she gets to make that programme!

Yes, he did an episode of Things Fell Apart on it

Victoria Smith writing about this in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/to-the-contrary-mary/

He's been quite weaselly on it - Glinner called him out on it.

Jon Ronson was on Meghan Daum's podcast The Unspeakable - I don't know loads about her but she will stand up for GC views I think - and he said this was one of the topics he was worried she'd ask him about... worth a listen, although can't remember much about it!

Probably very sensible to make a programme from an ostensibly neutral position and let the facts speak for themselves.

Well I’m reading her book and it’s quite clear what she really thinks!

Would you share a choice quote? I'm considering the book and curious.

Ooh interesting!

❤️ the Professor.

I think it’s a very good piece - she’s highlighting the loon element very calmly. That needs doing more.

Very disappointed in her wish washy and apologetic comments.

She is in a position where she knows that her expressed opinions carry weight. I am really sad that she isn’t stronger in her support for women and our rights, our language and our single sex places . I know she has faced negativity and personal attacks in the past, it would be lovely to think that she was able to support other women, (especially fellow academics), who are facing similar attacks now, attacks which moreover are affecting the lives and the livelihoods of many women both within and without academia.

Do share!

Oh she said "cis".
I think that tells you everything!