Allow me to set you straight, little lady
“Sophie Grace” Chappel wrote an open letter to Rowling last month; it was posted at Crooked Timber.
There are several paragraphs about the way Chappel derived understanding of his trans nature from reading fantasy novels including Rowling’s, and an expression of sympathy for Rowling’s experiences of abuse, and then the “but you’re wrong” part.
But I urge you to look a little more closely, and from a different angle, at some of the issues that you’re raising.
First, a quick harrumph of exasperation. You wrote on twitter that “If trans people were suffering discrimination on the basis of being trans then I would march with them”. To be honest, that tweet took my breath away. If we were suffering discrimination?? Trans people are one of the most discriminated-against groups in the world! What have you been reading for three years, if you haven’t noticed that?
Ah but what have you been reading if you take it for granted that that claim is true? We are indeed constantly told that trans people, especially trans women (i.e. men), are the most discriminated-against, but it’s always just telling. It turns out to mean that trans women who are sex workers are subject to a lot of violence.
But let’s let that pass; perhaps it was a Saturday-night lapse. Let’s move on to some points of simple and straightforward agreement.
And here we are already: the patronizing man bursts out from behind the girly mask. That’s how men talk to women they disagree with, “Sophie-Grace” – it’s a tell.
The climate of hatred does none of us any good. And it is particularly toxic for trans women who, like me, have grown up (at school and elsewhere) in an atmosphere of derision and rejection. I see from what you say that you understand how that kind of hatred can be internalised if you’re exposed to it long enough. When trans-unsympathetic feminists deliberately misgender trans women, or deride our appearance, or tell us “You’re men really”, or stigmatise us as perverts and predators, just the same thing is going on. It’s a raw nerve for us, and angry (and sometimes inexcusably violent) responses are evoked by that kind of hate-speech, because we ourselves have had to battle our way to self-acceptance, in the teeth of our own internalised transphobia.
He has no clue what it’s like to be female, does he. Despite the years of marriage, despite the daughters – still no clue. It’s only his experience that counts.
After that he gets into the shared spaces issue and zzzzzzz and sorry but I skipped ahead to his summing up:
Ms Rowling, it’s certainly not my intention, or the intention of any trans activists whom I personally know, to erode or erase the biological reality of (cis) women’s experience. Certainly not. Natal females start in a different place from trans women, and have a different journey and a different story, and undergo different things both good and bad. All these stories are worthwhile and valuable, and no one should be trying to prevent any of them from being told. Like the rest of the world, I look forward eagerly to seeing which of all these stories, in the future, you yourself choose to tell.
Patronizing git.
Except I don’t think he has found his way to self-acceptance. The truth is he really is a man, and while I wouldn’t call him a pervert, his choice of clothing looks entirely like erotic costume play (he’s wearing a ridiculous puffy petticoat in a picture circulating the Internet). I think the reason this feels like such a struggle for him is that he’s battling against self-acceptance. He’s battling against reality, because he finds the truth to be too embarrassing to process: that he’s a man who likes to play girly dress up. True self-acceptance would be admitting that men can like wearing feminine clothing without having to redefine the sexes for all of society.
Arty @1 I agree, that’s a good take. One of the things that gets me is how these people get to be in philosophy professorships, or even earn PhD’s, without understanding objective reality. The bar must be pretty low. I think it’s fine if he wants to be a trans woman, but if it’s at the expense of actual women and their struggles, just to satisfy and promote their own particular outlook, then it becomes completely unacceptable.
Another man who is “surgically curious” but does not seem he will ever change the configuration of his male genitals because, well, then he would not get off as much when he is dolled up in his frilly clothes. Whatever, dude.
Maybe we should have categories; Philosophers and Anti-Philosophers. Of course, being human necessitates some amount of foibles and eccentricity, but good god, being able to reason your way out of a wet paper sack should be a basic requirement.
As to how a philosopher could believe such things, I am reminded of the quotation attributed to George Orwell: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
I think some philosophers get so used to being able to argue every side of every proposition that they lose any ability to really judge the persuasiveness of an argument. (It’s an occupational hazard for lawyers, too.)
No need for Anti-Philosophers, we can just have Trans Philosophers. Boom tish.
Screechy@5 , yes but they ignore possible counterarguments! If that ain’t anti-philosophy, what is?
OB@6 One and the same, in the name of what, current trends? Honestly though, I have seen some real bad examples in other areas too. Too bad they can’t be disbarred like lawyers, but the folks who license them might probably be as idiotic as they are, or corrupt, ’cause that’s a ‘thing’ too nowadays.
This is what is so gob-smackingly insulting about the demands for us to ‘educate’ ourselves. It requires industrial strength arrogance for someone who believes a man can become a woman by power of thought alone to tell anybody to educate themselves.
twiliter, I think you missed OB’s wickedly subtle joke there. If a trans woman is really a pretend woman then a trans philosopher is….
AoS, It wasn’t completely lost on me. ;) I like to go on about people with credentials who haven’t really earned them, and those who are unable to live up to their titles, and those with self-procalimed or ill gotten accolades. Braggarts one and all, their feet in quicksand.
@twiliter
#2
Yes, because nothing screams “objective reality” like philosophy! Can Hume, Hegel, Dewey, Sartre, Quine, and Kant all be describing objective reality?
Good point Colin, not describing, but arguing from a basic understanding of it. lol