The author emphasises 'linguistic clarity', but the meaning of words often changes over time. What is really at issue is a dispute over whether trans-identified women and men are, psychologically, men and women respectively (1).
Regarding children, Kellie-Jay Keen has recently called for 'parents' of both sexes to resist transgenderist medicalisation (2). The author has previously stated that 'women have always been at the forefront...of child safeguarding' (3). Unfortunately, the behaviour of 'Stephen' Whittle, Polly Carmichael, Bernadette Wren, and many other women, show that this is not a reliable guide to policy.
The author has also stated that the 'sexism' of some male critics of transgenderism such as Jordan Peterson is 'a lot more insidious and impactful' than that of pornographer and exploiter (and alleged coercer) of women Andrew Tate (4). It seems quite possible that such poorly evidenced versions of feminism have contributed to the current strength of transgenderism globally.
Thanks for this piece. Angst about feminist divisions (see the curt comment just now from Helen Dale) has emerged and is real: there was a rupture in the 1980s between second and third wave feminsms. With the latter came Queer Theory and the anti-realism of the postmodern turn, championed in the latter version (especially by Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler). Trans ideology represents the most egregious and divisive social trend since the postmodern turn, with an enmeshment with American individualism and the rise of New Social Movements. Equality was thereafter was displaced by diversity and we are all now suffering the consequences. For this reason, any serious analysis of the challenge posed by trans ideology has to also unpick the weakness more geneally of identity politics. One resource to do this is from critical realism and its four planar social being framework. The first plane is the natural world (a man cannot be turned into a woman anymore than lead can be turned into gold). The second plane is relationality (the preoccupation with ingroup/outgroup reasoning, as a hallmark of all forms of identity politics). In this case the neologism of 'cis' was invented for this finger pointing purpose. The third is our embedding social and economic strutures. In this case of relevance is patriarchy and the interest work of 'affirmative' therapists, endocrinologists and cosmetic surgeons (not forgetting drug company profits). The fourth is the sacralisation of our unique experience (the pros and cons of 'lived experience' or epistemological privilege). All four are important to understand-identity politics creates fornms of reductionism that overly-dwell on planes 2 and 4, leaving the material reality of our biology and our particular social and economic structures backgrounded or ignored. Traditional sloganising about right and left do not work in the case of identity politics, as they are valorised, for different reasons, across the political spectrum. This recalls other political trends, such as eugenics at the turn of the 20th century. I have explored all this and more in my book Identity Politics: Where Did It All Go Wrong? (Phoenix Books, 2022).
FWIW here's an opinion from the USA: I couldn't agree more that the GRA needs to be repealed. But I don't think that would be enough. The public needs to settle the issue of legal sex change once and for all by voting on a referendum: "Yes or no, should anybody or institution be allowed to change to, or keep, a legal sex different from actual sex for themselves or anybody else?"
Excellent piece, spot on. The RadFem loonies should be left to their circular firing squad; the rest of us don't need to join in.
The author emphasises 'linguistic clarity', but the meaning of words often changes over time. What is really at issue is a dispute over whether trans-identified women and men are, psychologically, men and women respectively (1).
Regarding children, Kellie-Jay Keen has recently called for 'parents' of both sexes to resist transgenderist medicalisation (2). The author has previously stated that 'women have always been at the forefront...of child safeguarding' (3). Unfortunately, the behaviour of 'Stephen' Whittle, Polly Carmichael, Bernadette Wren, and many other women, show that this is not a reliable guide to policy.
The author has also stated that the 'sexism' of some male critics of transgenderism such as Jordan Peterson is 'a lot more insidious and impactful' than that of pornographer and exploiter (and alleged coercer) of women Andrew Tate (4). It seems quite possible that such poorly evidenced versions of feminism have contributed to the current strength of transgenderism globally.
(1) https://drnmblog.wordpress.com/2021/11/26/book-review-the-abolition-of-sex-by-kara-dansky/
(2) https://twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/1623117510517178368?s=20
(3) Born in the Right Body. Kindle, 2022.
(4) https://twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1609847210186776579?s=20&t=PT1qhZf36Bh6Clqm27NesQ
Dear Julian Thankyou
Thanks for this piece. Angst about feminist divisions (see the curt comment just now from Helen Dale) has emerged and is real: there was a rupture in the 1980s between second and third wave feminsms. With the latter came Queer Theory and the anti-realism of the postmodern turn, championed in the latter version (especially by Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler). Trans ideology represents the most egregious and divisive social trend since the postmodern turn, with an enmeshment with American individualism and the rise of New Social Movements. Equality was thereafter was displaced by diversity and we are all now suffering the consequences. For this reason, any serious analysis of the challenge posed by trans ideology has to also unpick the weakness more geneally of identity politics. One resource to do this is from critical realism and its four planar social being framework. The first plane is the natural world (a man cannot be turned into a woman anymore than lead can be turned into gold). The second plane is relationality (the preoccupation with ingroup/outgroup reasoning, as a hallmark of all forms of identity politics). In this case the neologism of 'cis' was invented for this finger pointing purpose. The third is our embedding social and economic strutures. In this case of relevance is patriarchy and the interest work of 'affirmative' therapists, endocrinologists and cosmetic surgeons (not forgetting drug company profits). The fourth is the sacralisation of our unique experience (the pros and cons of 'lived experience' or epistemological privilege). All four are important to understand-identity politics creates fornms of reductionism that overly-dwell on planes 2 and 4, leaving the material reality of our biology and our particular social and economic structures backgrounded or ignored. Traditional sloganising about right and left do not work in the case of identity politics, as they are valorised, for different reasons, across the political spectrum. This recalls other political trends, such as eugenics at the turn of the 20th century. I have explored all this and more in my book Identity Politics: Where Did It All Go Wrong? (Phoenix Books, 2022).
FWIW here's an opinion from the USA: I couldn't agree more that the GRA needs to be repealed. But I don't think that would be enough. The public needs to settle the issue of legal sex change once and for all by voting on a referendum: "Yes or no, should anybody or institution be allowed to change to, or keep, a legal sex different from actual sex for themselves or anybody else?"