What Greer stands accused of is thoughtcrime
Rebecca Reilly-Cooper makes an important point about the campaign to no-platform Germaine Greer:
Greer said nothing about what rights trans people ought to have or how they ought to be treated, and certainly nothing that could plausibly be interpreted as an incitement to violence. Believing that trans women are men is neither an incitement to violence, nor is it dehumanising, unless you also happen to think that men deserve violence and are not human. So the two main offences she is accused of are ones she openly admits to: not believing that transgender women are women, and not believing that transphobia – prejudice and bigotry towards transgender people – exists.
Both of these offences are solely concerned with the propositional content of Greer’s beliefs. That is, the objection is that she believes things that her opponents believe to be false, and that these beliefs are, for reasons that are never properly articulated, “dangerous”. So what Greer stands accused of is, essentially, thoughtcrime. She is guilty of holding the wrong thoughts, of believing the wrong things, of entertaining ideas and defining concepts in ways that diverge from some doctrine to which all decent people are supposed to subscribe. One must believe that trans women are women, and one must believe that trans people are subject to forms of prejudice and discrimination that others are not, and if you do not hold those beliefs, then you are by definition dangerous, a potential threat to others, and must be silenced. The possibility of reasonable disagreement on these issues is ruled out, ex hypothesi.
I’ve been noticing this for a long time, and not with pleasure. I’ve never tried to excavate and repair the beliefs of for instance the people who spend all their free time harassing feminists on Twitter. They could fake basic decency as opposed to believing in it, and the result for everyone else would be the same.
We all do try to influence each other’s beliefs by arguing or questioning or shouting, but that’s not the same kind of thing as punishing people for having Wrong Beliefs.
The response to Greer and her alleged transphobia is just one example of a creeping trend among social justice activists of an identitarian persuasion: a tendency towards ideological totalism, the attempt to determine not only what policies and actions are acceptable, but what thoughts and beliefs are, too. Contemporary identity-based social justice activism is increasingly displaying the kinds of totalising and authoritarian tactics that we usually associate with cults or quasi-religious movements which aim to control the thoughts and inner lives of their members. The doctrine of “gender identity” – the idea that people possess an essential inner gender that is independent both of their sexed body and of the social reality of being treated as a person with such a body – has rapidly been elevated to the status of quasi-religious belief, such that those who do not subscribe to it are seen as not only mistaken and misguided, but dangerous and threatening, and must therefore be silenced.
Even those who aren’t sure whether they subscribe to it or not are seen as dangerous and threatening and to be silenced.
She compares the methods and reactions of the belief-policers to “many, if not all, of the features of thought control identified by Robert Jay Lifton in his classic study of indoctrination in Chinese re-education camps” including
- Demands for purity – dividing the world sharply into pure and impure, good and evil, believer and nonbeliever. There are people who believe that trans women are women, and there are transphobic bigots who “deny trans people’s right to exist”. No intermediate position is possible.
- A cult of confession – individuals are required to reveal their sins and transgressions in order to be redeemed. As a non-trans person, the only way to secure one’s status as an ally is to confess to one’s “cis privilege” and to engage in repeated, performative privilege checking. (My own personal experience of this came when I publicly stated that I do not accept the label “cisgender”, which resulted in my being accused of the chillingly Orwellian-sounding crime of “privilege denial”).
- Loading the language – the use of thought-terminating clichés and complex and ever changing terminological rules. Just try to critically examine the soundbite “trans women are women” and see how fast the accusations of prejudice and bigotry come flying in. This is a phrase intended to stop you asking difficult questions.
That all sounds so grindingly familiar to me.
It’s not healthy. Boot my antiquated butt all you want, but this situation is not healthy.
There is no issue, however of the moment or ancient, that will raise the human animal from the tribal or the pigeonholing. That achievement belongs to a different category of endeavor which can’t be forced on anyone else.
I wish the article had more clearly engaged with the opposing argument. Just like men are more likely to engage in violence against women due to rape culture or violence against Black people due to racism, people (mostly cis men) are more likely to engage in violence against trans women due to transphobia. A man living in a culture with ubiquitous messages that trans women are disgusting or deceitful is more likely to commit violence against trans women. Someone who repeatedly makes those kinds of statements is contributing to that culture and thus, indirectly, to the violence.
Imagine students protesting a university inviting Charles Murray for the propositional content of “The Bell Curve”. Or consider the no-platforming of David Irving for holocaust denial. There’s no reasonable argument that those speakers are directly inciting violence, but I can’t imagine those efforts being dismissed as simply as Rebecca Reilly-Cooper dismisses the legitimacy of the Cardiff University protest in this article.
@qwints #2
qwints, “not believing that transgender women are women” is not “trans women are disgusting or deceitful.”
(“not believing that transphobia – prejudice and bigotry towards transgender people – exists” could I guess be taken as “trans women are deceitful”–if it’s read as “they’re just lying about all the [trans specific] hostility they have to wade through.” It’s such a ridiculous position it frankly baffles me.)
Lady Mondegreen, did you read Greer’s descriptions of trans women? At least in the articles I have seen (dated to the 80s and 90s) she uses language that expresses disgust at the appearance of trans women, even describing the hand of a trans woman as an ‘enormous, knuckly, hairy, be-ringed paw’ (see here. That’s dehumanizing language. Using dehumanizing language to describe members of marginalized groups has a bad history. I have no idea how she spoke of trans women in more recent years, so I don’t want to make any claims about her danger now, but the old pieces – are pretty bad IMO.
I fail at html. The link I intended to include was https://twitter.com/ParisLees/status/659353608157274112
@Anat, no, I didn’t. I agree, that’s nasty.
When I made my comment I was thinking less of Greer specifically and more of the bigger picture, where the question “are trans women women?” is used as a shibboleth. Answer with anything other than an unqualified yes and it’s assumed you think trans women are “deceitful and disgusting,” or worse.
I apologise if I missed your point, qwints.
If Greer was going to speak on trans issues, no-platforming would make absolute sense.
But she’s speaking on ‘Women and Power’, an issue she is expert in.
She is rude. She is contentious. She’s pushing against the rules that say women have to be Nice.
Every time I read Greer I find something that makes me say “oh, you are so wrong.” She makes me think. That’s her job.
If we said “Caitlyn Jenner’s gender identity has always been that of a woman” no-one could argue that. But saying that “Caitlyn Jenner has always been a woman” is open to argument: Caitlyn Jenner performed masculinity, she lived as a man. Excuse me if it takes me some time to read and understand the arguments.
That’s how things change.
As for the idea that Greer is inciting violence: the kind of person who punches a trans person, or runs them out of a toilet does not read Greer. They are reacting to a very primitive “you are different, I am afraid” impulse that people who challenge gender have always faced. By all means, let’s point out how Greer is wrong.
But telling people not to read one of the most influential feminist writers of our generation? You have got to be kidding me.
When I was young, I didn’t read Mary Daly because I was told she was a rad-fem transphobe. That’s what will happen to Greer and it will be a very great loss.
Imagine students protesting a university inviting Charles Murray for the propositional content of “The Bell Curve”. Or consider the no-platforming of David Irving for holocaust denial. There’s no reasonable argument that those speakers are directly inciting violence, but I can’t imagine those efforts being dismissed as simply as Rebecca Reilly-Cooper dismisses the legitimacy of the Cardiff University protest in this article.
Yes, exactly. Judith Miller was invited to speak at an event at the college I attended, a speech which probably did not have much to do with Iraq, but I was disgusted and I regret the fact that I didn’t take time off from work to protest.
Is whether the lecture will incite violence the only legitimate objection to someone being invited to give a lecture at a university? I think that is a respectable position, if applied consistently, but if I would protest Judith Miller, I can’t condemn the Cardiff students for protesting Greer.
One wonders how much Ms. Greer is getting paid for her lectures. One of the circumstances in which student protests and even no-platforming is entirely justifiable is when a university is paying the speaker with student money.
Seems to me you could legitimately compare homophobia.
TW: bad werdz.
Homophobic: being gay is a SIN! Faggots will burn in hell etc etc.
Not homophobic: I’m not sure if being gay is genetic or has some other cause, but it really doesn’t matter. Gay people are human, so you should treat them with respect and not call them nasty names.
Transphobic: eww disgusting hairy men in dresses, trannies are gross.
Not transphobic: I’m not sure if transwomen are somehow “truly” women or if there even is such a thing as “woman” per se, but it really doesn’t matter. Trans people are human, so you should treat them with respect and not call them nasty names.
After reading some of Greer’s really vitriolic past comments, it becomes difficult to defend her. I can’t deny that some of her past rhetoric has been genuinely dehumanizing (though I haven’t dug in to see whether she ever apologized). But most commentary doesn’t appear to be aimed at defending the propriety of the kind of dehumanizing statements she has made. They are, like me, concerned about the purity campaign that has been a part of online discussion and is frankly very creepy.
Accusing Greer of ‘inciting violence’ is a real cop-out. Those offended virgins seeking to de-platform her are only doing so because Greer forces them to challenge some of their more cherished assumptions. Greer is inciting *unpleasant* thoughts and *disturbing* views that some simply don’t wish to entertain. They fear Greer because they know she has the power and the courage to tackle and to question certain shibboleths.
I don’t believe that trans gendered women are women. There…I said it. I believe that they’re just as human as you and I and, therefore, just as deserving of respect and tolerance and love as any other class of human being. Just because I don’t believe they’re women doesn’t mean I would commit acts of violence against them.
Does the fact I don’t believe Moses parted the Red Sea make me anti-Semitic?
At 95 George Burns said he felt young…and I,m sure that he did. However, what Burns FELT himself to be and what he actually WAS were two different things.
Unlike someone truly young ( ex 25 years old ) he didn’t have another 60 or 70 years of life to look forward to.
@Anat #4 She was calling trans women “ghastly parodies” as late as 2009 http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/aug/20/germaine-greer-caster-semenya
“Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women’s names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn’t polite to say so. We pretend that all the people passing for female really are. Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man’s delusion that he is female.”
Are we really suggesting that saying that trans women are merely men pretending (poorly) to be women doesn’t encourage violence against them when they do things like try to use the gender appropriate bathroom? Because the evidence that we have suggests that disparaging people makes it far more likely that they will be discriminated against, for example this paper published in 2004 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/4925HomeComputer/Rape%20myths/Social%20Consequences.pdf) that discusses how “disparagement humor” (like, for example, pointing out how terribly manly trans women are) ends up increasing discriminatory behavior against them.
Finally, John @ #11: So what you’re saying is that there is no difference between sex and gender? Because gender is literally how you feel. If there were a difference between biological age and a form of aging that is based on your perception of your own age, then your comparison would be valid, but as is you’re comparing two very different things and saying that gender doesn’t exist, sex is all there is.
“gender is literally how you feel”
Wtf?
@ 12
Two things
1) How we view ourselves can sometimes be very different from how others view us.
2) Being a female has a very important biological component that simple can’t be discounted.
If Caitlyn Jenner sees herself as female, I accept that self-perception and would have no trouble using female pronouns in her presence. However I don’t believe that she’s a women.
I found Jenner’s appearance in Vanity Fair creepy, by the way. What’s with all the hyper-feminine props? The Veronica Lake peekaboo hair, the bustier a la Betty Grable and the 40s pinup pose? What was that cover, if not a parody? Most women I know wear slacks.
I used to enjoy going to drag shows but no longer do so. I had an epiphany and came to the conclusion that drag, with its emphasis on exaggerated feminine attributes ( enormous breasts, exaggerated bottoms and makeup etc ), was just another version of black-face; women as Step-‘n-fetch-it.
#13: “Gender is how you feel” about *what*, exactly?
The whole ‘Being a female has a very important biological component that simple can’t be discounted.’ is an overstatement. What genitals anyone has should matter to a very small group of people, namely a subset of their doctors and their current intimate partner(s). There is no need to announce to everyone ‘person with vulva/uterus/XX chromosomes here’. It should have zero impact on day-to-day interactions. That it does is just evidence that we live in a sexist society. This harms women of all kinds as well as trans people of all kinds and intersex people of all kinds – basically anyone who isn’t a cis (heterosexual) male (well, cis-het males are also harmed, but at least they have the social and economic power). All the various disadvantaged groups deal with the sexism of society the best they can. Part of the way trans people deal is to demand to be acknowledged as the gender they identify with at all times, regardless of what stage they are in their transition (legal, social, physical, any other), because people should not be required to disclose the status of their private parts to random strangers on every turn. I have no problem calling (and thinking) a woman anyone who consistently says they are one and not quibble about what makes them say so.
At the same time, I would like to have a convenient way to describe people with certain types of body that respects both the person and those with somewhat overlapping identities who have a different body type (and yes, there are people whose body temporarily or permanently doesn’t fall in the major body types). Both for the purpose of dealing with medical issues and the politics related to them and for being able to discuss forms of discrimination and how to deal with them.
The biological component is not just a matter of what genitals a person has, ffs.
@ Cressida #16 According to the American Psychiatric Association, a person’s gender identity is, “…a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else.” (http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx). The World Health Organization says that, “Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. “(http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/). The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that transgender people are, ” a heterogeneous group of people who do not conform to the conventional ideas of gender as being ‘male’ or ‘female’ according to anatomical sex” in their journal BJPsych (http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/18/1/2).
The gender a person identifies with is exactly how they feel themselves to be. Pretending that genitalia overrides this is essentially denying that gender is a thing separate from sex.
@John #15 I agree, the Vanity Fair cover was really creepy in a number of ways. The way that we perform gender is unquestionably a problem. But that doesn’t make it a “parody,” nor does it mean that it or people who are trying to live their lives are “ghastly.” Further, while the experiences of women who were assigned such at birth are different from trans women’s experience, women who were born rich also have different experiences than ones who were born poor. Women who were born white have different experiences than women who were born black. Having a different “biological component” does not invalidate a person’s gender identity.
If I were ten years younger I would say I literally cannot even. Gender is literally how you feel? Biology is just about external genitals which don’t affect most people except at the doctor’s office?
This is badly misguided. It’s nonsensical when you take the time to deeply consider what it could mean. I wish more people would.
@Josh #20 “Gender is literally how you feel?” So the leading psychological organizations are wrong?
The “leading psychological organizations” aren’t some kind of truth-Vatican. Psychology is not the only relevant discipline or category.
Fair enough. What other discipline should be considered?
No. We can’t address the problem with this by just re-asserting the assertion “gender is literally how you feel.” I’m saying we need to go back and unpack what that could mean. It is NOT self evident shorn of context. Simple fact.
I’m asking directly, in your (plural you) words, explicitly what you mean when you say, “gender is literally how you feel.” Not what the APA thinks about that paraphrase. What it actually means in an intellectual sense.
Yeah, some of the things Greer has said are just fucking mean and I can’t expect any trans person to have an ounce of benefit of the doubt to extend to her. But like Jennifer, that’s not what concerns me. This is most definitely not merely about Greer’s nastiest remarks. It’s much more about an objection to the existence of the actual content of what she says. It’s a moral objection to the basic distinction between sex and gender.
“It’s a moral objection to the basic distinction between sex and gender.”
That’s where you and I differ. I would argue that Greer’s supporters deny that there is a difference between sex and gender. Women are born with certain biological traits and men with others and those are immutable. Greer is on record arguing that somebody assigned male at birth cannot be female unless that person has had a functional vagina implanted. That doesn’t recognize a basic distinction between sex and gender, it denies that gender is even possible.
“Not what the APA thinks about that paraphrase. What it actually means in an intellectual sense.”
Why are we ignoring experts in at least one relevant field in favor of a layman’s opinion? Maybe I’m not understanding you properly when you ask for what something means “in an intellectual sense,” but we already have a number of definitions from people who have spent decades studying the subject with links to additional context. I’m all for unpacking, but why don’t we unpack those?
#19, so would it be a fair interpretation to say that, in your view, the definition of the female gender (how about we refer to that as “woman,” to be clear) does not include any references to primary or secondary sex characteristics?
#28, Those can be (though do not have to be) related to how one constructs a sense of gender, but they are not necessary for any particular gender. In most cases possessing particular primary or secondary sex characteristics contributes to how one views their own gender, but gender dysphoria demonstrates that that is not always the case.
What do you mean when you say that sex characteristics do not have to be related to “how one constructs a sense of gender”? Do you mean that a person’s sex characteristics don’t have to *match* the person’s “sense of gender,” or are you saying that sex characteristics don’t have to *inform* one’s “sense of gender” in general?
Kaoru Negisa #19 and later:
English is not my first language and there may be some subtleties here which elude me. Anyway, I will take the risk…
From APA:
That’s not the same as “gender is how you feel”. Prima facie, the quote is about “gender identity”, not gender. The formulation still leaves open whether your gender = your gender identity. For comparison, consider “nationality” and “national identity”: are they always the same? (My own answer: no. But again the caveat: I describe how it sounds to me, but I emphasize that English is not my first language.)
From WHO:
That’s again not the same as “gender is how you feel”. What should happen if you apply to yourself a given “socially constructed characteristic”, while some other people refuse you such an application? What is your gender then? Who should decide and how? The quote is unhelpful and I don’t see it provides any answer.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists:
But “not conforming to the conventional ideas of gender” is not necessarily the same as “not belonging to a given gender”. One can not conform to the conventional ideas of being French while still being French. Without some explanation (in particular, without a clear explanation of what gender is), that’s unhelpful again.
At the moment I just do not understand how, according to you, these quotes support the idea that “gender = how you feel”.
“What genitals anyone has should matter to a very small group of people, namely a subset of their doctors and their current intimate partner(s). There is no need to announce to everyone ‘person with vulva/uterus/XX chromosomes here’. It should have zero impact on day-to-day interactions.”
You know what? Some people feel the same way about EVERY OTHER aspect of gender. WHY is anyone allowed to treat me differently than someone with an Adam’s Apple? And yet my higher voice means less fucking respect.
WHY are men allowed to try to tell me not to lift heavy objects? I have less arm strength, slightly, but you are supposed to lift with your knees and I have one less possible way to get a hernia than they do.
(Oh, hey, looks like bodies impact more than sexual events.)
WHY do I get stared at in certain places where everyone around me is male, and treated as invisible in others?
Oh, oh! I know the answers! It’s SEXISM!
So when you say genitalia should on;t matter to a small group of people but imply that *gender*, on the other hand, should determine how I am treated, you are pulling out pompoms and cheering for sexism. The kind of sexism we fight every single day.
Samantha Vimes, yes, all these things shouldn’t matter. As I said, that they do is evidence that society is sexist.
No, I don’t think gender should determine how you or anyone else is treated, but we are forced to use gender – at least for the purpose of communication. I’m all for using singular they as the default pronoun, and eventually as the only pronoun for singular humans (English doesn’t have male you and female you, as opposed to Semitic languages for instance, why not expand this lack of distinction to the third person?). And remove the gender box from official forms. Leave only the relevant information (medical forms can come with parts lists, so many people have non-standard combinations, especially as we age and undergo assorted surgeries).
Come to think of it, speakers of Hungarian manage with a genderless singular third person pronoun. Though Hungarian (at least as I learned it as a child) does create gendered nouns, for instance professions get a suffix indicating that a woman is doing the job.
“transgender people are, ” a heterogeneous group of people who do not conform to the conventional ideas of gender as being ‘male’ or ‘female’ according to anatomical sex”
I wish! If that were really the case, as it should be, girls and women could wear suits and behave in a masculine fashion…. and remain women. Boys and men could wear dresses/skirts if they wanted (trust me, not many women are dress wearers unless there is a wedding or perhaps they are going to a dance club) and take up traditionally femsle interests. … and remain men. That is how one conquers gender… not by looking at the stereotypes of gender linked with sex and say, looks like i fit better over there…. “i guess I need to identify as THE OPPOSITE gender”.. holding on to socially stereotypic feminine or masculine gender binary that is at the root of patriarchy and injustice to women. Is it any wonder that many feminists are not at all on board with this?
I’m going to say it too. Transwomen are not truly women… and gender is not just about “how you feel”. Those prescribed roles and restrictions were very much based on sex… are inextricably linked to it. Women are treated as the subordinate weaker reproductive class because of female physiology, and men are prescribed the class of physical dominance because of their physiology, and thus power, and production.
What i find interesting about transwomen who pass as female is that they seem truly shocked at the misogyny and maltreatment they begin to receive at the hands of men, the loss of privilege, and all the garbage that go along with that. Well duh, they “chose” to become part of the subordinate and the oppressed class, moving away from dominance and privilege. What did they expect exactly! Certainly not women’s reality, it seems!
My sense is that being socialized male meant not truly seeing what women experience day to day. That is most often true of men. And my experience is that this perceived “unfair injustice” makes them, at least those in transgender activism, very, very angry. They don’t seem to notice that this maltreatment at the hands of men and society is just what women have experienced since their earliest memory, and then rationally become kindred souls with us and allies for women.. oh no! The oppression olympics begins instead. Its a competition with women instead of an allyship with them. Almost like they’d been taught this competitive behavior with women all their lives! Go figure. They call one transgender murder a month a “bloodbath”, yet ignore the 3 women who are murdered PER DAY in the U.S. Instead, they do the following (see link below); the misogynistic behavior women receive from transwomen online is the same as women experience from mra….. transwomen who suddenly feel the oppression females have felt daily since birth… and blame women for it, sending out death threats, entreaties to kill ourselves, and just pure hate. Just like members of the MRA, the transwomen below blame women and feminism for their pain and lash out at women who dare to not accept every aspect of their ideology:
http://terfisaslur.com
“The biological component is not just a matter of what genitals a person has, ffs.” – Ophelia Benson
ABSOLUTELY!!
If we were all identical except for what we kept hidden from public, employers, etc. inside our underwear, sexism wouldn’t exist. Anyone with an inkling of biology would be well aware of that fact that it goes far beyond that. Transactivists would like allies and the public to believe sex just boils down to insignificant genitals, so a person can change from male to female (sex) just by their say so. No.
BarbsWire, even in the most egalitarian society you can imagine, some trans people will want to modify their bodies. Trans people will not cease to exist just because no gender-specific presentation or gender-specific roles exist. Also, the trans people I know don’t choose to transition because they like the roles or presentation associated with a gender other than the one assigned to them, they adopt the roles and presentation in order to pass as members of an other gender.
Then again, there are trans people who do wish to break down the gender binary. My kid would like to wear the occasional skirt without it interfering with their ability to pass as a boy. As things are, skirts are only for home and queer events. Can we leave binaries for computers?
What? If no gender-specific presentation or gender-specific roles exist then what does “trans” mean?
Trans-sexual makes perfect sense in that case. Body dysmorphia treated by body alteration. Trans-gender only makes sense in a gendered society, and the one we have is deeply sexist. I’d certainly prefer no gender to our current ideas of gender.
Anat, good comment, but this snipe is ironic:
Did you expect a “yes” or “no” answer to that question? ;)
@ 38 Ophelia Benson
At the risk of pissing you off, I think that question was alreadly addressed, rather powerfully, in the previous incarnation of this blog, by kevinkirkpatrick. I think it’s worth quoting at length — sorry for the wall of text:
Ophelia @29, in that ideal society trans-ness will be limited to people who experience dysphoria over the primary and secondary sexual traits of their bodies.
John Morales @40, the question was rhetorical. More an expression of a wish than an actual question.
Oops, my #42 addresses Ophelia@38.
SilentBob@41:
(quoting a quote from Kevinkirkpatrick)
This particular statement is sketchy. Two-year-olds do not usually put together full sentences like “when will I grow my penis”? I’m not saying that it’s impossible, just that most two-year-olds are working on two-word-sentences like “daddy here!” and the like. Nor do they have matured ideas about what plumbing goes with whom, or notions of right and wrong, to the extent that a two-year-old child could “proudly proclaim” that he’d found “found (our) mistake” and “actually had one”. And they definitely don’t have very good notions of time, to the extent that they can demand to know when something is going to happen. They generally just demand what they want NOW. The question that Kevin quoted implies his son having an understanding both of the progression of time, as well as its effects (development, etc.). I am VERY skeptical of all these things in a two-year-old toddler.
I’m not saying that Kevin was lying. Perhaps he got the timeline wrong. But a two-year-old expressing adult notions of the biology of sex, among other things? No. That never happened. Which is NOT to say that his son didn’t say those things, or experience gender dysphoria–just that it’s highly unlikely that a two-year-old said those things. Which brings the rest of the story into question. It may all still be plausible. There’s just a very weird sense of exaggeration in order to convince going on there.
If a child is demanding a body part they don’t have, then they are arguing they are the wrong sex, not the wrong gender. Unless you are saying that sex and gender are exactly the same thing, which I thought people got accused of being anti-trans for saying?
MrFancyPants, a 2 year old can be up to almost 3. At 3-and-some I’m pretty sure I knew that the fact that my brother had different bits had something to do with why he was a brother rather than a sister. (As opposed to when I was one-and-some and realized my cousin had different bits but had no idea what the significance was). My mother claims I was speaking in complete sentences shortly after turning one. My child managed subject-verb-object sentences in 2 languages by 20 months. No idea about the development of my perception of time, but all that Kevin’s story requires is that a child understand that one day they will be similar to the adults they know, or perhaps the older children.
Anat@47:
I understand that. That is why I said that I’m not saying that Kevin KP was lying.
And I contend, as I did, that two-(to-three)-year-olds do not understand this. They don’t have the language, much less the intellectual framework, in general.
I find it interesting that you say that your mother states that you were speaking in “complete sentences shortly after turning one.” So you don’t remember that? Why not? Could it be because your intellectual capacity was not developed at all, and memories not retained? What does that say about a two-year-old in a similar situation?
@ 48 MrFancyPants
Kevin Kirkpatrick still comments here (or did within 48 hours). I see no reason whatsoever to doubt what he says.
Silentbo@49:
Of course I realize that. I read the comments here, too.
I see no reason to doubt his basic narrative that he has a transgender son. I also see no reason to accept everything at face value. I only picked out one particular detail, not his entire narrative. Parts of anecdotes can be accurate, and other parts can be motivated but false, or at best stretched. Surely you realize this or have encountered it in the past. Your blanket acceptance of everything that someone anecdotally relates is not warranted, and I outlined some reasons why in my previous comments.
MrFancyPants, I don’t know enough about memory to answer your question. I know I have very detailed memories from when I was 3, and less detailed ones from when I was 2 or less (the advantage of having moved a lot in childhood is that knowing where something happened gives me an idea about when it happened). OTOH my child claims to barely remember anything from their elementary school years. I have no idea what the significance of not remembering a part of one’s childhood might be.
I don’t know when I first realized that I will be a grown-up one day, but I definitely understood that by the time I was 4. OTOH around the same age my child expected to become a bigger, older child but not an adult. Not all kids develop on the same schedule.
Anat @53,
Fair enough. A quite ambitious wish, considering that in our societies, there are only two sexes and therefore two primitive genders: men and women. For your wish to come true, two changes to societal norms are necessary: the decoupling of sex and gender, and an acceptance that gender can be fuzzy* and changeable.
(Obviously, feminism has made great strides at decoupling sex from both gender roles and gender privileges, but even that is still a work in progress)
—
* Includes agendered people, which is a special case.
Expanding upon your quote of Kevin, Silentbob:
I think this comment in the quote from Kevin is central: (paraphrased)
Does anyone here deny this thesis? I don’t think so.
Point 2:
Yes, this is a bad thing, and I agree that it must stop.
How does it relate to thinking/talking about gender issues in general? This is the central issue about Greer and whether she should be no-platformed or not. She explicitly said that she had no opinion on how transgender persons should be treated, and never said that anyone should be “forced” to be anything.
I realize that Kevin didn’t post this in the context of this original post. I’m responding to it only insofar as you reposted it in full here, Silentbob.
[@43, above. Sorry]
Anat@51:
You’re basically reinforcing my point, albeit admittedly in an anecdotal sense. I don’t have any science to back up my claims that 2-year-olds cannot spout out fully-formed meaningful sentences, I’ve just never seen it happen. They might be able to, sometimes. Which is why I never claimed to say that Kevin was wrong or a liar. Maybe his son actually said that stuff, who knows. My own, anecdotal evidence, is that 2-year-olds don’t do that kind of thing.
If nothing else, this conversation has illustrated why we could use some real science investigation into these things. What is a man? What is a woman? Beyond just genetics, I mean. Etc., etc. As long as we continue to debate these topics with anecdotes, there will be no general resolution.
… and do we have to be a man or a woman. No other options?
Anat,
Sure, to the degree those categories are social constructs, there are options — but biologically, we’re mammals, with two sexes and their corresponding dimorphism. I’m not saying your wish is impossible, but noting that it will take the sort of drastic societal change that needs catastrophes or generational change to achieve.
(One could quibble (whatever one’s specific criteria might be) about edge cases for the purposes of sex assignation to any given individual, but there really is no third sex)
Amazes me how many on here still think the question of whether or nor Greer should be no-platformed depends on the content of her speech. There is a bigger principle here: censorship of speech and ideas is just wrong. No-platforming should not happen. Ever. Speech should be free. If it hurts your feelings that someone says something you really, really disagree with, that is just tough. Work on your feelings rather than sucking dishonest rhetoric about ‘violence’ out of your thumb. Speech isn’t violence. If you want to argue back, go right ahead. Stand outside and hand out leaflets. Hold a counter event. Just don’t demand your opponent shuts up, because then you have already lost.
The other debate about Greer’s views and the meaning of gender is very interesting but is beside the point. We should defend here right to say whatever she wants to say against the illiberal censorship of those who would ban her.
Pinkeen:
A very arguable claim, because it’s so absolute and because it’s so very easy to think of examples where that would really be a bad idea. You would do well to qualify such claims if you want to sound reasonable.
(Appeals to consequences are not fallacious in ethical reasoning)
Anat #33 and #34:
This will be a side comment just for the hobbyists (oh, I mean… just for anyone who would be mildly interested in some aspects of the language wars beyond the English-speaking countries).
Take the sentences:
(a) The teacher was late.
(b) The lawyer gave a speech.
In English these are gender-neutral sentences. Not so in Slavic languages. Firstly, our grammar requires the gendered form of the noun (“teacher”, “lawyer”). Secondly, the verb itself (“was late”, “gave”) also has to be gendered – we have different verb suffixes, which should accord with the form of the noun. You just have to choose one and there is no escape. That’s grammar!
What happens if we don’t know the person’s gender? It’s at this point that the funny stuff begins. In case (a) both forms would be acceptable but I think that a female form is more popular. It’s just that … well, the teachers are so often female, right? (Similarly with “The nurse was tired” – we have a distinct grammatical suffix for male nurses but a female one would be used by default). On the other hand, in (b) you would use a female form ONLY if you knew that the lawyer was female – it’s unnatural otherwise and you wouldn’t be understood!
To make it even worse, some expressions come in the masculine form *only*. Here are some examples (there are more):
– Driver
– Minister
– President
– General (in the army)
– Adjunct (the university)
– Architect
I was thinking hard about the names which come with a feminine gender only; but I’m able to come up with just two: “pre-school teacher” (in Polish it’s a single word, very different from “teacher”) and “prostitute”. They don’t have masculine forms; moreover, any application of them to men sounds (to us) rather weird. (As you can guess, it creates sometimes practical problems.)
Yeah, *I know*.
The pronouns – so important in feminist discourse in the Anglo-Saxon world – are of secondary importance here. In fact, our grammar permits us to omit them altogether. Instead of e.g. “She was tired” we often say something like “Was tired”, with “was” in an appropriate gendered form. With gendered verbs, the pronouns are often really redundant. It’s a perfectly acceptable and very popular way of speaking here.
In general, in our language gender is all-pervasive and no simple reform would do. This changes the situation for our feminists, who do not propose anything far reaching (too drastic to have even the slightest chance of being accepted). So far the emphasis has been on introducing female forms wherever they are absent – see the examples given earlier;* the feminists protest also against using the male form as the default one in cases like (b) above.
*In some cases the success has been considerable. Words like “sociologist”, “psychologist” or “philosopher” are now used quite often also with a female suffix. Some years ago this would sound laughable.
Whether it is a bad idea or not in any particular instance is beside the point. The principle protects us all. When you allow exceptions, you end up where we are with Greer, you have no position of principle to argue from.
But what instances are you thinking of? If you mean direct calls for harm to groups of individuals, or assault, in other words, illegal activity, that is, of course, already against the law and hardly worth discussing. Apart from that, what?
Pinkeen above,
That one will do. You’ve just provided an exception to your “ever”, based on illegality.
I get offensiveness is definitely not exceptional in your view, but is immorality also hardly worth discussing as a basis for exceptions to the otherwise-inviolable principle of free speech?
No, that has nothing to do with no-platforming. Universities are barred by law from, well, breaking the law. Personally I think the legal restrictions on ‘hate speech’ etc are too onerous, but that is a completely different conversation. I don’t think you can find an exception to the no platform principle that would not be hotly controversial.
To answer your question, no, I don’t think offensiveness or immorality are reasons for censoring speech. As much as anything else, we would not be able to agree what offesnsiveness is or whose morality should govern our choices.
Pinkeen:
It is a direct response to your claim that “No-platforming should not happen. Ever. Speech should be free.”
But fine, what you really meant by the above is more like “No-platforming should not happen. Ever. Speech should be free unless it is unlawful.”
(Seems to lose a bit of its ideological gloss thereby, to me)
John, not inviting a speaker who you are debarred from law from inviting is not ‘no-platforming’. It is illegal to invite such people. The police will not allow it. No platforming is about barring people who have a legal right to speak for political reasons.
It seems an odd distraction to argue about this. My point stands, no-platforming should not happen ever. We should fight it on principle. Speech should be free. Whether the current legal restrictions on speech should stand is a separate question, in general, I would say not.
But what are the many obvious exceptions to to the no no-platforming priciple that you referred to?
Pinkeen,
OK.
Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Blanc#November_2014_media_scandals_and_appearance
More to the topic now: Anat in #4 and Jennifer Chavez in #11 expressed also my own thoughts on this, so there is no point in being repetitive. As for the declarations “Transwomen are not women”, made by some people here: I’m afraid I’m one of those who are hopelessly enamoured with the “so what?” question, hence I’m tempted to ask: so what? What are the practical consequences, if any? And could you go beyond the pronouns and “general human respect”, please? Just to give some examples:
– Should transwomen be excluded from all-female colleges? (That was the position taken *in practice* – not just in thought – by Greer some time ago.)
– Should young transwomen be rejected as girl scouts?
– If you are worried about ‘all-male events’ (conferences and so on), does the presence of transwomen count? Is it enough to stop you from piqueting and protesting?
– Are there any ‘all-female’ events from which (in your opinion) transwomen should be excluded?
– If you are male, would you consider a transwoman as a potential sex partner?
– Do you find it appropriate to choose a transwoman for a position of power (e.g. a political one) designed to represent women? Would you vote for a transwoman in such a situation? Would you protest if she is chosen?
These are just some examples; obviously the list could be made much, much longer. For clarity: it’s not a “yes or no” ultimatum and I’m neither demanding nor even expecting that anyone here answers these questions. For even more clarity: I’m not going to call anyone “a vile bigot” for an ‘impure answer’. My only aim is to indicate that this is the point where we stop discussing ‘thoughtcrimes’ and move instead to real life consequences. It is here where the real conversation begins. As I see it, it is these consequences that matter, not declarations.
John, do you really think your example is likely ever to be an invite at a university? I haven’t explored in much detail, but I can’t think it very likely.
Ariel @60: Then you have Hebrew, Arabic, and any other Semitic language, where (almost) everything is gendered – nouns, verbs, adjectives, numbers… The old convention in Hebrew is that the presence of a single male (person, animal, or inanimate object) noun in a group or a list of nouns masculinizes the entire group or list. The current convention is that 2nd person masculine plural counts as gender-inclusive. For instance as late as the 1980s you could find cookbooks or boxes of laundry detergent with directions intended for a female-singular audience, in the 90s there was a shift towards masculine-plural. (The toaster we received as a wedding gift came with instructions for use in female-singular, and instructions for repair in masculine-singular.)
In Hebrew most professions have male and female forms, with the male form considered generic. So the exercise of ‘draw a picture of a scientist’ inevitably results in images of male scientists because the instructions are most likely to use the male form of ‘scientist’. Again, use of the plural (masculine) forms is the way to be intentionally inclusive.
My son was expressing distress about his body in his 2’s; the exact articulation of “when will I grow my penis” may have been in his early 3’s. Although I hasten to add that early language development varies HUGELY… my younger son’s language skills in his mid-2’s were probably about where my older son’s were in his early-to-mid-3’s. FWIW, he did test into the school district’s gifted-child program in Kindergarten (I mention this only as an objective point to reinforce the assertion that he does tend to surpass conventional development milestones).
I’d also like to point out that drawing conclusions from the fact that most children – who do not have any sense of “something wrong” about their body parts – rarely (if ever) give those parts the least bit of attention… is not a reasonable basis to not expect transgender children – who do sense something wrong – to be inclined to express that distress often and as clearly from a young age. My son’s early-childhood comments are so memorable precisely because they ran so contrary to what one expects children to be concerned with at that age (yeah, no parenting books had any tips on how to respond to those statements). My older son – age 9 – is only now showing any such level of bodily awareness (i.e. the traditional/healthy curiosity of impending puberty). I mention that to assure that my wife and I didn’t engage in some weird parenting style which drove some bizarre fixation on body parts in our kids at young age. I should also mention that many other parents of transgender kids (met at local support group) have relayed uncannily similar experiences from their kids’ early years.
Other memorable comments from my son’s early childhood:
* Tearful meltdown when my wife informed him he’d grow breasts when he got older.
* Family conversation: “What do want to be when you grow up?” Older son (6): “A computer programmer and pirate (KK note: the “Arrr, Matey! kind, not computer pirate :-) )”. Younger son (3): “An uncle”
* While waiting for fireworks display to start (mentioned because it ties to precisely timed event when he was 3 years, 6 months old), me: “I will *always* be a boy, daddy”
Another point – many seem to want to paint his experience in the light of “I dislike all these gender expressions associated with girls (long hair, dresses, pink/princess bedding/sheets, dolls, etc); and prefer those associated with boys (short hair, shorts-and-no-shirt, blue/transformers bedding/sheets, etc).” In other words, they have this notion that he’d have just been content to be a girl, as long as he was e.g. allowed to wear all the stuff boys got to wear. Way off. Far more accurate would be “I dislike gender expressions that are associated with girls because I’m not a girl and I feel awful to be forced into that association”. Put another way, were conventions reversed such that boys culturally wore pink, glittery dresses; he’d have been demanding to be dressed in nothing but.
Ariel @67: To each of your questions add: Does the time spent as an out-trans woman matter? Does the state of transitioning matter? Does the age of transition (or coming out as trans) matter?
Quick typo fix, “While waiting for fireworks display to start (mentioned because it ties to precisely timed event when he was 3 years, 6 months old), to me: “I will *always* be a boy, daddy”
(This was in response to my question along the lines of, “so, how long do you want to keep that short boy-haircut”; the response was what stuck in my memory, largely because it was the clearest cut articulation of gender preference; not expression preference, he’d given)
Anat:
Actually it’s the same here. “A nice Russian blonde finished first” – in Polish translation all of the words (no exceptions!) would be gendered. It’s really all-pervasive.
What you are saying about Semitic languages is new to me. Still, some of the phenomena (in particular, masculinization of the entire group by the presence of a single male) are very familiar – we have the same here. All of this looks like the feminist reformer’s nightmare, isn’t it?
You are also quite right in your #71.
Ariel @ 67 –
Who has said that here? Where? I can’t find anyone saying that here except you.
Ophelia @ 74
John @ 12 –
Barbswire @ 35 –
Kaoru, thanks. Yes, that’s what I had in mind.
“I don’t believe that trans gendered women are women” is not the same as “Transwomen are not women.” A belief statement is not the same as an assertion of fact.
True, but “I’m going to say it too. Transwomen are not truly women” is in fact an assertion of fact, and if we’re splitting rhetorical hairs here, your statement was that “I can’t find anyone saying that here except you.” While I believe that you couldn’t find it (it’s a long comment thread), clearly at least one person did say so as an assertion of fact.
And further, while we’re in the process of being very specific about our language use, I think perhaps “thoughtcrime” is not appropriate here. In its original use, “thoughtcrime” referred to unspoken beliefs that were nonetheless illegal due to psychological monitoring on the part of the state. Greer has been for several decades very vocal about her opinions of trans people, trans women specifically, and is being called out on her published and spoken work, behaviors, not her thoughts. Her attempt to prevent Rachael Padman from getting a job puts the lie to the assertion that she’s perfectly happy to let trans people live their lives or that she’s only being accused of holding thoughts deemed unacceptable. The reactions are to things that she has said, done, and written in public, hardly “thoughtcrime.”
Whether she should be no-platformed from a talk on an unrelated subject is still debatable (I would say that she should be allowed to speak), but can we please not pretend that she’s innocent of anything other than holding the wrong opinions rather than that people are upset that she uses her platform to denigrate trans people and in at least one case try to keep one from gainful employment? She is being treated in exactly the same way that we treat Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Matt Barber, Pat Robertson, Mat Staver, Peter LaBarbera, and so many others who are not old women and yet share Greer’s opinions on trans people.
Ophelia, you mean that John could have meant that he was undecided either way? Maybe; I’m certainly not planning to be stubborn about this (John can explain if he wants). This still leaves Barbswire: “Transwomen are not truly women” sounds pretty clear.
Be that as it may, I would treat the declaration “I’m undecided” as similarly vague. “What is it – in concrete, practical terms – that you are undecided about?” is still one of the first things I would be inclined to ask. See the list in my #67. The questions remain unchanged; it’s just that “undecided” or “not sure” is one of the options.
Let me also repeat that whether one is undecided or not, nuanced or not, it is (imo) here – with such questions – that the real conversation begins. It’s such a shame that so many people on FtB started shouting instead of talking – instead of engaging into such a conversation! (And just in case: no, I do not think that each time a simple “yes or no or undecided” answer is the only legitimate move.)
@ 78 – Do not come here and talk about “splitting rhetorical hairs.”
Yes, one person did say it as an assertion of fact, and the other did not. That’s what I said.
I agree with you about Rachel Padman; that’s a lot more than words.
Ariel, all I mean is what I said – a belief statement is not the same as an unadorned assertion of fact.
It is, yes, and that’s why I left. One reason I left. The hostility was a reason, and the empty stupidity of the conversation was another reason.
You are absolutely right. That was passive-agressive bullshit on my part and I apologize.
Which is rather my point. This is not about “thoughtcrime” which is often used these days as a way of saying, “being held accountable for unpopular opinions.” She has taken concrete actions that people are upset about. Again, this shouldn’t have anything to do with an unrelated talk in the sense that students can protest but she shouldn’t be prevented from speaking, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to suggest that she’s being held accountable just because she has an unpopular opinion. The reaction is to material things that she has done.
Thank you.
Some people are upset about her actions, but it’s not at all clear to me that everyone is. Rachel Melhuish was ridiculously vague in her absurd petition.
I agree that this is an important distinction – I abhor the religious practice of stating one’s beliefs as facts. “I believe” generally packs with it, “but I’m open to hearing how I might be wrong.”
That said, beliefs generally correlate with actions (if not directly cause them). It doesnt take much guesswork to identify which flavor of laws a person will support, should they state, “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.” I can guarantee that of those students who protested a transgender classmate’s usage of the women’s restroom; exactly 0 would say “I believe that transwomen are really women”. I’ve seen, and have relayed, several incidences where “I don’t believe transgender boys are really boys” has directly impacted my son’s life (the most recently posted example showing an extension of this: two adults who were open to changing their belief, and how their doing so had an immediate positive effect on their child, my child, and the relationship between the two of them).
Pinkeen @ 58:
“Amazes me how many on here still think the question of whether or nor Greer should be no-platformed depends on the content of her speech. There is a bigger principle here: censorship of speech and ideas is just wrong. No-platforming should not happen. Ever.”
That’s nonsense. No-platforming is not censorship. While people have a right to speak, they do not have a right to speak at a certain venue. I cannot demand a platform at a university, nor should I be able to. Also, as shown by her BBC interview, Ms. Greer is not hurting for platforms that are willing to let her speak. Moreover, no one has a right to be paid an honorarium, stipend, or other remuneration for a speech, and if I were a student, I would certainly have something to say about my tuition going to pay speaking fees for views I find abhorrent (see, e.g., the National Front). While the values of open debate, diversity of ideas and academic freedom should carry great weight in determining who to invite to speak at a university, there are only so many speaking slots and only so much money budgeted to pay speakers, and it’s entirely appropriate for the folks inviting speakers to pass on a speaker with a lot of baggage in favor of someone whose reputation does not overshadow the educational content of their message.
#53:
I don’t know if I *deny* it, but I do question it. If you take away reproductive organs and the cultural baggage, what else is there? What could that “gender identity” be based on, if on neither of those two things?
We’ve gotten off topic
This is the crux.
Does the mere fact of expressing unpopular opinions or beliefs, as Greer is sometimes known to do, justify de-platforming her?
Expressing unpopular opinions and beliefs is what propels humanity forward.
What people here forget…or are perhaps not old enough to remember… is that Greer first got into the business of promoting women’s rights by doing just that. Many of her opinions from 40 and 50 years ago were considered extremely unpleasant… even by vast numbers of women at the time. She’s an in-your-face ‘Strine, a shock-jock of feminism
When you’re finished listening to one of her speeches, you’re bound to be shaken, awakened and stirred.
So if you’re prone to bubble-wrapping your ears, then just exit the auditorium
RE: Ariel #67
Oh lists! I like lists!!
Here are my answers:
– Should transwomen be excluded from all-female colleges? (That was the position taken *in practice* – not just in thought – by Greer some time ago.)
– -As a rule, I’d say Admission is up to the Admission Staff, colleges have to answer to the their benefactors and alumni and all-female colleges are beyond my experience, so I have no real opinion on this one
– Should young transwomen be rejected as girl scouts?
– -Uh, unsure. Never been a member of scouts. Do they do competitive sports? See my question below.
– If you are worried about ‘all-male events’ (conferences and so on), does the presence of transwomen count? Is it enough to stop you from piqueting and protesting?
– -I have no idea what you mean by this. Please give an example of an ‘all-male event’?
– Are there any ‘all-female’ events from which (in your opinion) transwomen should be excluded?
– -Yes, FGM rituals! See also my question below.
– If you are male, would you consider a transwoman as a potential sex partner?
– -Better question, if you prefer female bodied sex partners, would you consider a transwoman as a potential sex partner? If so, at what stage of transition and why? A lesbian friend of mine related the story of ‘feeling up’ a potential sex partner,only to find altered bits, not natural bits. This was a visceral reaction. Does that make her a transphobe?
– Do you find it appropriate to choose a transwoman for a position of power (e.g. a political one) designed to represent women? Would you vote for a transwoman in such a situation? Would you protest if she is chosen?
– -too abstract. Name a position of power designed to represent women? Are there really such things?
My question –
Should transwomen be allowed to play professional sports? At what stage of transition?
Consider this statement “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”– Renee Richards (Slate interview 10/25/2012, probably retracted in the current climate).
(IMHO, that’s a bit of an unprovable boast, but hey, she said it. TERF, amiright?)
I do. I will not for a moment deny that for some people, there is a sense of SEXED identity which is independent of their reproductive organs and perception of cultural stereotypes. I note that Kevin’s son is distressed about not having a penis and growing breasts: bodily sexual characteristics. His SEX causes him trouble. I have no idea what this gender identity might be, if it is not cultural stereotypes (which are also crucially hierarchical.) Reproductive organs are about sex, not gender.
I also think that it is legitimate to question if there are any limits to the issue of transwomen being in socially designated women’s spaces. I have zero problem with 99% of cases, like the toilets question – FFS, they’re cubicles anyway, who even cares? But there are some edge cases that I would consider – the rape crisis counsellor and the teenage high school locker room have been mentioned in other places. Remembering the high rate of child sexual abuse and the vulnerability of young teenage girls and the unlikeliness of a young teenage trans girl having had SRS – her anatomical differences could be a source of distress to both herself and others. NOT that she should be forced in with boys, but as with other people with medical conditions, have some consideration for her privacy. Private change rooms would help a lot.
To Samantha Vimes @46: The way I understand Kevin’s story of his son, it isn’t that the child wanted to have a penis in order to be a boy, but that somehow the child determined that he was a boy, and therefore should have a penis like other boys.
cazz: Re: Girl Scouts:
See here:
What is Girl Scouts’ position on serving transgender youth?
Girl Scouts is proud to be the premiere leadership organization for girls in the country. Placement of transgender youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority. That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.
How does Girl Scouts’ position on serving transgender youth apply to situations involving camping or volunteers?
These situations are rare and are considered individually with the best interests of all families in mind. Should any girl requiring special accommodations wish to camp, GSUSA recommends that the local council makes similar accommodation that schools across the country follow in regard to changing, sleeping arrangements, and other travel-related activities. With respect to volunteers, Girl Scouts welcomes both male and female adult volunteers and has developed appropriate safeguards regarding roles and responsibilities to ensure that girls receive the proper supervision and support.
———————
More re: cazz@89:
concerns about ‘all male events’: Example: There is concern regarding under-representation of women among speakers and panel members in professional conferences. If among speakers at an event there were 5 cis-men and one trans woman, would that be considered an event with all-male speakers, or an event with some (albeit inadequate) representation of women among the speakers.
Does it matter if the topic of the event is completely unrelated to gender vs if it is at least somewhat gender-related?
Position of power representing women:
– say a representative on a committee that is meant to solve disputes at the work place, and there is a requirement for the presence of at least one woman.
– political parties in countries with parliamentary systems sometimes reserve a certain number of spots for representatives of various sectors, with women often being one such sector.
———————
A reverse example from my child’s life: Before my child started questioning their gender, they attended an event meant to encourage girls to consider entering STEM careers. The following year the school created a ‘STEM for her’ club. By then my child was identifying as genderqueer. They avoided joining the club as they did not consider themself part of the target audience. Would such a club be appropriate for a trans girl? A trans girl who has been living out as a girl since a very young age?
cazz:
Ah, yes. My question was badly formulated indeed; your version is definitely better.
Believe me, I didn’t compose the list in order to spot TERFs; the hidden idea was rather that if people started talking about such issues – instead of shouting and getting angry – perhaps they would discover that they not differ that much from each other. (Yes, a very stupid hope.) But surely for such an aim you would need a far better list than mine.
Just this; I’m tired and going to bed.
Re: sports – see here. With a requirement of 2 years of hormone replacement therapy I doubt much advantage remains.
Okay. The way i said what i said seems to have caused some consternation. I incorrectly assumed that “I believe” would be inserted when I said “I’ll say it too”. In otherwords a “ditto” to John’s statement that he didn’t believe trans gender women to be women. So I’ll say it the way I meant it. I do not believe transwomen are truly women, in the sense that they have not been socialized as women since birth, nor have experienced the lifelong oppression of being raised female. The gender stereotype “woman” is based upon, and linked by society with, being a member of the reproductive class.
What if someone did mean it (that transwomen are not women) as a truth statement though? Would the individuals who take issue with that statement made by some people also take issue with other people who say “transwomen are women, full stop”? Because that is certainly a truth statement, and one made with far less biological, sociological and psychological evidence than the opposite statement.
BarbsWire, what about trans women who transition in childhood or adolescence? We know that once trans women transition they do come under the same discrimination and oppression that cis women experience. So a trans woman who transitioned at say, age 10, by the time she is 30 has spent twice as long experiencing gender oppression than she has experienced gender privilege.
Anat, hopefully this situation is rare. That it is becoming more common (“transition” in children) I find truly horrifying. Considering that most children do not maintain this “transitioned” status is evidence that we are conducting a dangerous experiment on children today… an experiment with unknown outcomes for the long run. I’ve read many articles pro and against… with most of the “against” being from councelors and health professionals who feel forced to take this route against their better judgements. As a person with a psychology degree and educated in social work, the red flags that are imbued in parental descriptions of their “transgender child” are many and troubling. In most cases I believe therapy for the parents is most definitely in order.
But I’ll get back to your question about a child who transitions by age 10 *shudders*. Socialization as girls and boys starts at birth. So does the endowment of privilege, in the case of boys, beginning at birth as well. Even by 10, there is a significant difference in how boys and girls have been taught to behave, are expected to react to social situations, and what they are taught they are capable of.
I think transwomen are women. Because I don’t make woman into an essentialist category, but a social category. Any trans woman who lives as a woman and is accepted as such by others is a woman as far as I’m concerned.
What other criteria make sense? Being socialized as female may start at birth, but it’s also very different in different cultures and classes, so it’s hardly uniform. Chromosomes aren’t visible, and unless you’ve been chromosome typed or given birth you don’t know for certain if you’re XX or maybe XY with androgen insensitivity or chimeric or what. Hormones are variable. Genital anatomy is variable.
Here I’m using “man” and “woman” as the social categories with “male” and “female” as the anatomical. So a transwoman has a male body, subject to whatever modifications she chooses to have. Cis women have female bodies. Cis is sex/gender match; trans is sex/gender mismatch. (I’m open to revising my terminology if there’s a better option.)
BTW, BarbsWire, you are mistaken if you think children are transitioning early. All that may happen before adulthood is puberty blockers – completely reversible. That allows the child more time to decide, and prevents the extreme dysphoria of developing the “wrong” adult secondary sexual characteristics.
I said “Cis is sex/gender match; trans is sex/gender mismatch.” Oh wait, that’s not right. I’m thinking aloud and messing up. At least in the terms I’ve used. cis is anatomical sex & mental sex congruent; trans is anatomical sex & mental sex incongruent. Gender is not sex.
Alethea, what you’ve just said here:
“Here I’m using “man” and “woman” as the social categories with “male” and “female” as the anatomical. So a transwoman has a male body, subject to whatever modifications she chooses to have.”
is enough for you to be labeled a TERF. The transactivist community and their feminist allies claim that to state the fact that transwomen are male bodied (many at least retain male genitalia or undergo no physical transition at all) is transphobic… that they are female (sex), and not only that, always have been. That is the mantra and is supported wholeheartedly by a whole group of feminists that embrace identity politics. It is, of course, nonsense.
“Woman” as a gender contains a long list of proscribed behaviors that is linked with being female bodied that work to keep females as lesser than males, that make females an oppressed group. That is why I’m extremely reticent to claim that “transwomen are women”. Transwomen are transwomen, who, until they can pass as women, have never personally experienced womanhood as part of an oppressed class… and in fact belonged to the privileged class and were socialized as such. I’m not sure why it isn’t enough to be considered transwomen, why the transactivist community feels they have the right to force themselves into female safe spaces even if they maintain a male body, and in fact harass lesbians for not wanting to have sex with their male bodies (the supposed cotton ceiling), a harrassment that is very rapey (unwilling to accept no without the labelling and harassment of women) and supports rape culture thinking. My belief is that it is so exactly because they were socialized with male privilege.
“BTW, BarbsWire, you are mistaken if you think children are transitioning early. All that may happen before adulthood is puberty blockers – completely reversible. That allows the child more time to decide, and prevents the extreme dysphoria of developing the “wrong” adult secondary sexual characteristics.”
I think you need to read more articles and case situations. It goes far beyond that socially, psychologically, where parental behaviour is like a form of avid grooming toward the opposite gender, and sometimes physically as well. If it was simply about taking blockers and telling the child, “lets see how you feel later”, i would have less of a problem with it. It is important to note that no research has been done into longer term effects of having taken blockers to delay puberty. We are literally experimenting on children at this point.
Alethea, a trans boy can start testosterone at 16 at a local hospital after screening, interviews etc. Some other practitioners are willing to start a year or two earlier.
An important piece regarding women’s rights vs transwomen’s rights, that highlights why radical feminists, and imo why all feminists, should fight against the influence of a “feminism” whose politics primarily revolves around the libertarian idealism of individual identity and choice, and who would try to no-platform gender critical feminist women.
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/written-evidence-submitted-by-sheila-jeffreys-to-the-transgender-equality-inquiry/
I’ll just leave this here.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2015/11/04/no-platforming-and-the-cult-of-bad-arguments/
Ah how sweet, Zvan is still monitoring me. Nothing creepy about that.