Almost always malign
Julian expands on his brief interview with “Sophie Grace” Chappell:
The published profile is short and allows Chappell to speak for herself with no criticism and minimal eyebrow-raising from me. The source interview, however, left me worried that mutual comprehension between the main actors this fight (for that is what is has become) is now almost impossible. (Supporters can listen to the entire interview here.)
Mutual comprehension is indeed very difficult. I for one find it impossible to understand how so many otherwise reasonable people can believe (or at least constantly repeat) the core claim.
Listening to Chappell, you would think that the gender critical feminists – derogatorily called TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminist) – are almost always malign, denigrating and misrepresenting trans people, while their opponents are overwhelmingly reasonable and moderate. So if you’ve been told trans activists are pushing for anything silly or extreme, that’s just misinformation.
Like a man running the Edinburgh rape crisis centre for instance? Like Lia Thomas competing against women? Like Lia Thomas being nominated Woman of the Year? Like the National Women’s History Museum featuring a page of three men who identify as women? Like removing the words “women” and “mother” from discussion of abortion rights? None of that is silly or extreme?
For example, Chappell argues that trans activism is not captured by any ideology. She said that she didn’t even have a gender theory or ideology and that neither is central to the fight for trans rights.
No theory? Then what makes him think he’s a woman? How did he ever get there? If there’s no theory how does he not just know he’s a man the way other men just know they’re men? How are the facts of his body not enough to convince him he’s a man, in the absence of a theory that explains how people can be women despite having male bodies? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Unintentional honesty and disingenuousness at the same time. In that trans “rights” is little more than a collection of demands informed by little more than narcissistic entitlement, calling it a “theory” or “ideology” dignifies it with a higher degree of consistency and coherence than it actually possesses.
Maybe he knows better than to get into details of explanatory underpinnings; I’m sure that many would come across much like the “reasoning” used to “explain” the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It’s easier (for him) if we just take it on faith. You’re trying to pin smoke to a wall, and Chappell is trying to avoid the fact that what he believes is illusory.
Perhaps this is a tacit admission that there is no theoretical framework as such (there’s certainly no coherent one), and he’s doing his best to stay away from sciencey stuff that isn’t likely to support his position. “Transness” seems to depend upon a higher degree of mind/body dualism than has been academically fashionable for a long time. Avoiding that territory might be best for a philosopher wishing to avoid reopening the Cartesian dichotomy.
Maybe this is the point at which we’re usually told to “educate ourselves.” The problem for trans activists is that many of us do exactly that, and come back appalled by and opposed to the dogma we’re supposed to swallow.
Sophistry.
If there’s no theory how does he not just know he’s a man the way other men just know they’re men?
I was asking questions along that line yesterday but was told I would not be answered unless I told the other that I was CIS or Trans first. Apparently, there are different answers to “how do you transition?” and “how do you know when you have fully transitioned?”.
@Rev David Brindley: Of course, the response differs. That’s standpoint epistemology in a nutshell.