Open letter by UK writers in solidarity (not with us obviously)

[CrossPurposes]

Prepare for some disappointing names.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18p-rvgNitRKYs9C2PoIBC86Fb2ZQnBd8PzEfgGfnsKo/edit?usp=drivesdk

Damn, I thought Billy Bragg was one of the good guys, so disappointed.

And none of the TRA/Transympathisers actually understand what bio-essentialism is.

Oh my sweet summer child. Where have you been? Not on Twitter, I assume.

Which is weird given that the American left is more on a par with the UK Conservatives in most respects, not Labour.

Almost as if these people are completely clueless.

@Windscreenviper

Anyway, I read the letter, and there were a few links incorporated, with one being about 186% increase in violent crimes against trans people in the last five years. Being interested to discover what this meant, I followed the link and it took me a Stonewall page where there was no information at all about what this meant. It didn't define what it meant by violent crime, and it didn't give examples.

I think about these kinds of stats all the time, and agree completely. Until someone can drill down into what they actually mean, it's the same kind of thing as "trans people's average age of death is 30", ie. untrue and completely unhelpful. Is it physical assaults (terrible, should never happen)? Or is it the more nebulous "words are physical assault" type of violent crime, in which someone can be violently attacked by being misgendered? I sound like I'm making fun, but with crime reporting stats from the police being what they are, this is a very real query, one which never seems to be answered by the Guardian, Pink News, et al.

The other thing is that when you talk about a percentage increase in something, it's really important to know what the starting point was.

If one trans person is murdered each year on average, and then one year two trans people are murdered, you can say that the rate of trans murders has increased by 100%. But because your starting point was so low, it can be a 100% increase and still be a very small number.

Whereas if 100 women are murdered each year on average and then one year 120 women are murdered, the rate at which women are being murdered has increased by 20%. That sounds like a lot less than the 100% increase in trans murders, but it means a hell of a lot more women are suddenly being murdered.

I am inherently suspicious of any statistic presented as a X% increase in something, without giving an indication of total numbers. Because very often it means very small numbers, presented in a deliberately scaremongering way.

Christ. I’m shocked. Why do so many people hate women so?

Gave up on twitter a long time ago thankfully. Obviously missed out on some vile stuff.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

er, no

he’s a complete tit

But it's just an opinion (if you agree with the part you have bolded).

I personally think its a matter of perspective. If you are trans then yes you might feel attacked. But yes it was a defence of course. Is it really an attack on their human rights. Debatable.

I would have preferred it was a letter to say both rights would be upholded too. But this is the arts. The space where its meant to be about inclusivity, where ideas are meant to be presented for debate and not forgone conclusion, where possibility is meant to exist.

It's hilarious, because essentialism has nothing to bloody do with biology.

The idea that there is a core, or essence of humanity beyond our material bodies - 'I think, therefore I am', is at its root. And this idea of a core, unified, rational subject had started to break down by the mid-nineteenth century. Although this breakdown is often placed with the mid-20th-century existentialists it in fact started long before this and had certainly taken root strongly by the 1890s.

Essentialism is the gendered idea that women are nurturers, carers, support humans etc - gendered attributes arbitrarily attached to our sex and accepted as 'natural, common-sense' discourse. What it is not, is the biololgical fact that we have a vag and tits.

Are these people really as stupid and uninformed as they appear? (Disclaimer: that was a rhetorical question) 😖

Glad to see that none of my favourite writers are on there and the only name I recognise, apart from those already mentioned, is Elizabeth Day.

Well you certainly missed Billy Bragg spewing his particularly vomit-worthy brand of progressive misogyny on a daily basis for the last few years.

Billy Bragg was so well-informed about this debate that he said something that revealed he thought puberty blockers were the same as beta blockers.

What a shame, he wrote some beautiful songs a few decades ago. Now he can’t think straight, sad.

I can’t be bothered going back to check, but I think Daisy Meadows was on there too.

His best song was a Woody Guthrie cover.

I’m going to listen to all his earlier stuff and lament what he has become. I’m glad that I left twitter and missed his demise.

I read Friendaholic and came to the conclusion that I'd cross the road to avoid meeting her. Utterly unsurprised to see her on this bandwagon.

Gary Neville and Roy Keane are not on there, so it can't be the Real Jamie, just someone who identifies as him.

The rest are all z listers with one or two exceptions of being professional luvvies.

I feel the same way about Philip Pullman. Arsehole.

He's not on that list though so is he reverse ferreting I wonder?

Either way I'll never forgive him. He knows what a woman is.

He wrote Sally Lockhart. Of course he knows what a woman is. Fucking wanker. Put him in the same pile as Margaret Atwood.

Oh classic 😂

Phew. Robert Galbraith isn't on there.
I'd have been gutted.
<Carries on reading Cormoran Strike>