You’ll never guess who wrote a broadside
The headline:
UK’s only trans philosophy professor to JK Rowling: Harry Potter helped me become a woman
So a trans philosophy professor is not a professor and knows nothing of philosophy?
Anyway, tell us a story.
In the autumn of 1969, a five-year-old boy called Timothy Chappell, in his first term at school, had an idea. Could he, he asked his mum, go to class as a girl? “My mother looked at me,” says Timothy – now Sophie-Grace – “and there was both terror and fury in her eyes. And she said to me: why?”
“Sophie-Grace.” Ffs. It’s as bad as “Sophie Labelle” who does that gruesome “Assigned Male” cartoon. Man becomes woman, names self wise-grace. But hey this movement has nothing to do with narcissism, oh hell no.
Chappell says her entire story is contained in that exchange: Timothy’s bemused but certain knowledge that he is in the wrong body; his mum’s understanding about that and her horror about what it could mean; and her anger at the little boy for naming it.
This is a philosophy professor? A philosophy professor thinks a child of five can have certain knowledge? A philosophy professor cites a child of five as evidence that a man really truly is a woman because he was certain of it when he was five?
He “lived as a man” until 2014 – so that’s 50 years of male privilege, however uneasy he felt with it.
“For decades I’d hated myself, hidden who I was. But in the end it simply didn’t work, and the wonderful thing about transitioning was that I was able to finally stand up and say: this is who I truly am.”
The person she said that to most recently, in an open letter, was JK Rowling, who on 7 July signed a letter warning of the dangers of censoriousness and intolerance, after publishing a broadside in June on transgender issues.
Except that it wasn’t a broadside, it was a thoughtful careful article. The language must be carefully shaped to flatter the trans person and denigrate the mere woman. To make sure we don’t get confused, the Guardian includes a photo of Rowling captioned:
The author JK Rowling in June published a broadside on transgender issues. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA
DID YOU GET THAT READERS? IT WAS A BROADSIDE. SHE IS A BAD PERSON.
But the bottom line, for Chappell, is this: “I think we can liken it to adoption. Trans women are like adoptive parents, who want to be accepted as being the same as biological parents. And they are accepted as such, despite the differences in how they became parents in the first place; and if society could do the same for trans women, we’d be in a better place.”
Sure, we can liken it to adoption, but the two are not the same, and if society treated it as if it were, we would be in a worse place – we already are in a lot of ways.
Well, JK Rowling is a broad, and it came from her side. So that makes it a broadside. I suppose.
Heh. I didn’t even notice the pun.
There are so many derogatory terms for women, puns like this are a dime a dozen.
Adoptive parents are not accepted as being the same as biological parents, they *are* accepted as being adoptive parents. Dreadful example. Yes, trans women need to be accepted as trans women, that, most everyone would accept, but Q: how many of them think they are actual biological women? And A: the ones who don’t make any noise about it, in other words, very few. This guy has a PhD? From where, a box of Cracker Jacks? There are so many people making noise about this issue that really need to get over themselves.
A truly stunning number of women could have written this sentence, and not need to follow it with “so I became something I wasn’t”. I’m pretty sure my mother hated who she was, didn’t like being a wife and mother, but saw no other choices. I know my grandmother wanted to be something different; she told me once she was glad I would get opportunities that so far exceeded hers. I know a lot of women even now (myself included) who would like to be in a different place, but did not receive the same opportunities as our brothers, the same open doors when we applied to schools, applied to jobs, walked in a place to buy a car, etc. This “philosophy professor” received all that, in a field that has been hostile to women. Just like “Caitlyn” Jenner, who made a name in a field women couldn’t enter, who made money and fame as a man then, when he got to be an elderly man, decided to become a woman and suck the oxygen out of the room with his famous name, his famous face, his famous money, and his famous family.
Yeah, a bit hard to be too sympathetic. Rowling had to put her books out there under her initials, because little boys don’t want to pick up a book written by someone called Joanne. I send my plays out under my initials, because while my name has traditionally been a ‘guy’s’ name, it is now much more common to women (at least in the US). I spent years dodging groping hands, being told I should be flattered at sexual harassment, and watching others be promoted/hired into jobs that were closed to me. I was the one who pushed a 6 pound melon out through a tiny opening; my husband (now ex) was always the one who got the praise for our “fine boy”. I was the one who cleaned the house; he was told how nice he kept it (I know, that one is unusual. His family assumed the man did all the cooking and cleaning; he did none of it, then complained in couples therapy that he was sick of having to do half the housework! I was making more money (I know, pay gap and all that, but I have a college degree, and he doesn’t), working more hours, and doing all the housework. I suspect that is the case for “Sophie Grace”‘s wife, too.
None of these men feel like a woman. They feel like they imagine a woman would feel, but do not share any of our experiences…and yes, we have common experiences, even though we experience them differently. J. K. and I share common experiences (abuse, anyone?); “Sophie Grace” and I come from entirely different worlds.
This is also a philosophy professor who believes adults can accurately recall events that happened when they were five, including what we were thinking and how we reacted, what others were thinking and how they reacted, and what it all meant! Well read and a deep thinker not!
Urgh, yes, good point. I noticed the certain knowledge part but not the absurdly detailed memory part.
Terrible analogy. Adoptive parents are accepted as parents based on what they do in relation to their adopted child. That’s why we can use “parenting” as a verb. Women are not defined as such because of all the “womaning” they do – but of course that’s what these people want. With the meaning of “to woman” defined by them (who else).
If adoptive parents acted like trans activists, they would be demanding that their own and their families’ medical history is taken into account whenever the adopted child is seen by a doctor. They’d be demanding access to ante-natal classes during the adoption process. Trying to get midwives sacked for not giving them appointments. Complaining how tough it is when they see other parents-to-be posting their scans on social media. Shouting about the privilege of women whose bodies and health have been damaged by pregnancy. Ultimately, someone would have the bright idea that it’s exclusive and gate keeping to only allow people to define as parents if they have a child, adopted or otherwise, and that being a parent is a special inner feeling and if you are a parent, you just know. Suddenly, there’s all sorts of childless weirdos hanging around playgrounds and school gates, and nobody can challenge them without being called a bigot or a TERP (no explanation needed, surely).
I just noticed, “parenting” and “mothering” encompass a range of things, whereas “fathering”, well… doesn’t.
Anyway, my most burning question is: Why are these middle-aged transitioners always so badly dressed? Jesus.
Catwhisperer – brilliantly put.
Nice comparison, Catwhisperer.
Yes, “fathering” is such a limited thing that one can be held to account for “parenting while male.”
https://daddy-dialectic.blogspot.com/2011/01/parenting-while-male-74-fathers-talk.html
Catwhisperer, you might be surprised that I have known an adoptive parent like the hypothetical one you describe. My older sister did most of those things. Fortunately, she was an anomaly, and most adoptive parents slide into their role as parents and do their thing.
At first I thought it was just a coincidence, as many don’t concern themselves with the etymology of names. I don’t know if you read it there or guessed it, but upon reading I found it was fully intentional:
“When she transitioned, Chappell was able to choose a new name for herself: Sophie, she says, for the Greek for wisdom; and Grace is her thanks for a gift she once couldn’t have imagined.”
He actually named himself wisdom-grace.
Iknklast – I’m so sorry that my imaginary awful person is your actual real-life sister (but I would like to know which of those things she didn’t do, I thought they were all equally preposterous).
Papito – interesting article, I had never thought about men being treated with suspicion for doing too much parenting. Of course I haven’t been able to overlook the way men are often celebrated for doing some small portion of the childcare that women do around the clock without anyone noticing. I may even have used the phrase “I think you’ll find that when it’s your own children, it’s called parenting, not baby-sitting” to complete strangers. Cheerfully, as if it’s just banter.
Holms – I did see that after I wrote the post, but it jumped out at me when I read it in the Guardian piece. I was probably primed to notice it because I’d already noticed “Sophie Labelle.” Yes, he actually named himself wisdom-grace, and “Sophie Labelle” actually named himself Wisey the Pretty.
But none of this has anything to do with narcissism, oh no no no no no.