A different story
Gaby Hinsliff at the Guardian chatted with Kathleen Stock. Some interesting points came up.
“I’m excited in a weird way, excited about my future,” she says. There is relief, too, at escaping what she felt was an “aggressive, intimidating environment” at her workplace of 18 years. Interestingly, while some blamed the Sussex standoff on a generation of students unable to tolerate views they dislike, Stock tells a different story. “Most of the students I encounter are completely open-minded and even if they disagree with me, which I’m sure a lot of them do, they wouldn’t hold it against me as a personal character flaw.” The problem, she says, was her peers.
Who are older, and thus, you might think, should know better.
[T]he backlash really began with a 2018 interview she gave to the local paper in LGBT-friendly Brighton, arguing that while most trans women wouldn’t dream of harming anyone, they shouldn’t have unrestricted access to places where females undress or sleep because “many trans women are still males with male genitalia”, words some find instantly offensive. Under the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall’s preferred definition of the term, denying a trans person’s stated identity is transphobic.
But first of all, Stonewall isn’t the boss of us. No one died and made Stonewall god. Stonewall can prefer what it likes, but it doesn’t get to force us to define words the way it prefers. That’s all the more true when its preference is both stupid and dangerous. It can’t be some kind of firm principle of social justice or humans rights that everyone is required to agree with how people “identify” with no questions asked. Obviously. I could claim to be you and take all your stuff, and vice versa. We could all “identify as” Joe Biden; now what?
No. Just no. A “stated identity” that contradicts our perceptions can’t be imposed on us by law and bullying.
Several Sussex colleagues publicly denounced her on social media, although strangely, she says, not to her face. “No peer ever said to me: ‘Look, I really object to what you’re saying and I’d like to discuss it with you.’ They immediately went to Defcon 1: ‘She’s a bigot… arguing for single-sex spaces is like the Jim Crow laws [that historically enforced racial segregation in the American south].’” She remains fascinated by the performative aspects of social media debate. “The important thing is to show your tribe that you have the right morals and you could show that by saying, ‘I’m not with her.’”
Yes but why is that the way you could show it now? Why is it that and not other, better things? Why can’t you show your tribe you have the right morals by saying feminist things instead of reality-denying anti-feminist things? Why has this become the New, Improved, More Sensitive filter?
Here’s an idea for every male genitalia-equipped trans type who wants admission to females-by-birth-only washrooms, dunnies and other facilities. Dress yourselves up in long flowing kaftans or somesuch, and carry a sturdy bucket with you wherever you go. Now you can use the bucket+kaftan combo as a portaloo (or mobile shithouse) at any hour of the day or night and wherever you happen to be.
Because if it has not happened already, sooner or later some male rapist is going to use the cover provided him by all this trans bullshit to enter a females-only facility and attack one or more of its female occupants. And then the shit will hit the fan, big time. Politicians may even get involved.
I was raised religious–Christian–protestant–and there were elements of dogma, like the trinity, that never made any sense to me (1 does not equal 3). At the time, I imagined that there was some deeper understanding that I lacked; that I could perhaps someday achieve through greater instruction or study. After I gave up on religion, I still didn’t understand these things, but understanding them no longer seemed interesting. They were just some nonsense that religious people spouted.
Just recently, I heard someone talking about groups and group identity. They pointed out that all groups have markers that they use to identify their members. Dress, language, rituals, dietary rules…people use all kinds of things as identity markers.
Some groups use professed beliefs as identity markers. We’re the tribe that believes X. But if X turns out to be true…well, there’s not much to that. Anyone can believe a true thing. 2+2=4. I believe it. Can I be in your tribe?
A better marker is an opinion: the Yankees are the best team.
Better still is a questionable opinion: The Cubs are going to win it this year. Really, they are. I believe! (See also: Great Pumpkin)
Best of all is a statement that is blatantly, manifestly false. Like 1 equals 3. Or trans women are women. If you claim to believe something like that, they you are committing yourself to the group that says that, and burning your bridges to the reality-based community.
So now I understand the Trinity. But what I understand is not that it is true, but that it is false, and that the whole point of it is to be a false thing that Christians can profess to believe to show that they are good Christians. I suspect trans ideology works the same way.
Steven @ #2…
That’s very good, and I would only add that for the most part, these absurdities that serve as tribal identifiers are things that carry very little social cost. Like, we all just shrug at young-earth creationists. They’re entitled to their beliefs, no matter if they’re wrong. We don’t refuse to hire them or bake wedding cakes for them. There is no cost to being a young-earth creationist, yet it’s a clear signal of identity to the other members of the club. Same with a straight TRA, and even an actual trans person these days.
Performative indeed. Just like India Willooghby’s faux geniality in and around the radio debate, followed by social media transperbolic accusations of “genocide.” The impersonal distance offered by the interposing technological channel allows and encourages extremism that would be stilted and inappropriate in personal, face to face meeting. You’re less likely to deploy boilerplate sloganeering (or a bullhorn) in an actual discussion with another person, than you are when playing for an audience of fellow true believers, where both the message and intended recipients are completely different. A genuine expression of hurt, or a sincere request for understanding and sympathy from someone you feel has wronged you, is not at all the same as a pearl-clutching rallying of the troops to come to your defence. One behaves differently in front of witnesses than in front of an audience.
There is always the danger of “our side” doing the same, though I daresay there seem to be few examples of this behaviour that I’ve seen coming from the feminist or gender critical side. The fact that trans activists must twist and misrepresent even the mildest statements in support of women’s spaces and boundaries into TERF “dog whistles” that are in reality denials of trans “existence,” and calls for trans “elimination,” is a pretty good indication of the fact they have no better evidence of explicit feminist malevolence. If they had any such evidence, they would use it.
And at that point, Stock’s colleagues stopped being colleagues and became Inquisitors, more interested in proclaiming their own orthodoxy (and protecting their own skin) than in coming to any sort of understanding or compromise. To compromise with Evil is itself Evil.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on A different […]
Let’s also recall how Stock’s university failed her for allowing the intolerance of her legitimate views about gender and the reality of sex to fester. Sadly, institutional capture of university HR departments by advocates for diversity, equality, and inclusivity has given trans activists a lever to use against those like Stock. Consider how Sussex did absolutely nothing for years despite Stock’s peers being engaged in a blatant smear campaign against her.
I’ve seen this happening in my own workplace, as my orgs HR dept. brought in a trans-gendered male to instruct me and my fellow employees about tolerance and diversity in our workplace, which also involved using themselves as an example. Like, ‘I dress as a woman but my deep voice shouldn’t raise concerns’ was a line he used, and I had a woman later come up to me after the meeting and tell me how uncomfortable she felt when hearing that. Not co-incidentally, the HR dept. head has now been declaring pronouns in her emails as part of her job to promote diversity, equality, and inclusivity. So much for any employee talking to HR then about any concerns they may have.
That the goal of inclusiveness is abused to make one’s actual sex a verboten subject is a problem given that HR departments are now in partnership with TRAs with, and the TRAs are taking full advantage of it. While Stonewall has been dropped in the U.K. by a growing number of orgs as a partner, the problem of HR departments being captured by trans ideology is still there. In general, wokeism is trying to make opinions that may clash with the goals of diversity, equality, and inclusiveness reason for cancelling those that hold them.
Yes. All of the above; truly.
BUT the political demand that we accept the proposition that ‘transwomen’ are women, given that it contradicts the near 100% universally accepted definition of ‘woman’ that crosses all national and cultural boundaries, means that this cultural variance and disagreement gets transformed into a standard political dogfight.
People of course are free to define themselves to the wider world as they please, but the wider world is under no obligation to accept their definitions and take them up for more general use. As illustrated by Steven @#2, to do otherwise takes us to an Alice in Wonderland world where anything goes.
I am happy to accept that my reality is not the next person’s reality. But conversation and discourse depend on fairlyt watertight concepts and definitions (scientific discussions particularly so.) The proposition that some ‘women’ have male genitalia is a stretch too far.