This is superb, Heather. Kathleen once chided me for live tweeting from the House of Lords and using the word ‘mutilated’. I told her that I was tweeting the words used by distraught mothers of surgically transitioned children; she told me I had a responsibility to censor the words. I told her I would not be that dishonest.
A pleasure to read! In particular I am concerned that so many feminists have embraced a so-called "feminist" book whose author, instead of putting forth arguments based on the strength of her ideas and using argument and ideas to overcome those with which she does not agree, instead personally attacks by name another feminist who has demonstrated a lifetime of tireless work for women. Not to mention that there are many feminist scholars (and others) who also hold Dr. Long's position, so to act like she is an outlier is disingenuous and misleading. How is an ad hominem attack in a published work either feminist OR a legitimate way to structure a work of philosophy? It's rather more like intentionally generating negative gossip fodder in order to cause harm to another feminists' career and reputation, which calls into question every bit of the author's professed feminism. I find this tactic of Stock's, in particular, both bizarre and ridiculous, and very troubling.
That is excellent and fair. KS appears to be trying to have her cake and eat with her purported feminism alongside a conciliatory tone, but the acceptance of the verbal abomination that is ‘cis’ is an indulgence too far for me.
This is superb, Heather. Kathleen once chided me for live tweeting from the House of Lords and using the word ‘mutilated’. I told her that I was tweeting the words used by distraught mothers of surgically transitioned children; she told me I had a responsibility to censor the words. I told her I would not be that dishonest.
A pleasure to read! In particular I am concerned that so many feminists have embraced a so-called "feminist" book whose author, instead of putting forth arguments based on the strength of her ideas and using argument and ideas to overcome those with which she does not agree, instead personally attacks by name another feminist who has demonstrated a lifetime of tireless work for women. Not to mention that there are many feminist scholars (and others) who also hold Dr. Long's position, so to act like she is an outlier is disingenuous and misleading. How is an ad hominem attack in a published work either feminist OR a legitimate way to structure a work of philosophy? It's rather more like intentionally generating negative gossip fodder in order to cause harm to another feminists' career and reputation, which calls into question every bit of the author's professed feminism. I find this tactic of Stock's, in particular, both bizarre and ridiculous, and very troubling.
That is excellent and fair. KS appears to be trying to have her cake and eat with her purported feminism alongside a conciliatory tone, but the acceptance of the verbal abomination that is ‘cis’ is an indulgence too far for me.
Excellent article by Heather.