Women who are academics can’t really rely on their union, because its secretary is Jo Grady, who…
Its quite simple. Attacking trans women does not protect cis women. Attacking the institutions that campaign for equality for trans women does not protect cis women. Treating the lives of trans people as a philosophical debate dehumanises trans people. They exist and always have.
Anyway, not only do I want to express solidarity to all trans and non binary people, this has also got me thinking about what UCU can and should do to ensure we are even more involved in helping fight this fight and stand shoulder to shoulder with our trans and nb siblings #Pride
All good arguments get weaponised sooner or later. This depresses me.
It’s a goodargument to say that policies should not be made in the abstract without reference to the people they affect.
It’s a bad argument to say that we should never debate hypothetical possibilities or consider abstract propositions when making policy.
I mean, that second one is just plain fucking nuts. Of course we need to treat the lives of trans people (and all people) as a philosophical debate at times. Not doing so means we have to capitulate with every demand and end up with groups like Stonewall telling everyone what to do despite having a clear, sinister agenda and no more expertise in the matter than anyone else.
People are treating entire modes of argument as soundbites they can copy and paste into every statement they make. They’ve forgotten what those modes are for, if they even knew what to begin with.
It’s just so wilfully ignorant. To me, it says that a person doesn’t really have an argument, so they’re pasting in something that sounds like one. Something that has successfully been used as an argument in the past. Ignorant. Lazy. Stupid. I don’t know why these people don’t do away with the text box in their Twitter client altogether and just have a series of boxes to tick for each Tweet.
Of course we need to treat the lives of trans people (and all people) as a philosophical debate at times.
It’s not their lives. Nobody argues that trans-identified people are not alive. Nobody argues that they don’t exist. This is the slight of hand that the TRA s want to cllaim about us. No, we simply argue that we don’t have to believe false claims that they make about themselves. Donald Trump argues that he is still the rightful president of the US. We are not obligated to believe that false claim — but we’re not treating his life as a philosophical debate. He exists. He is alive. Will Trumpists learn an argument tactic from TRAs, and now start claiming that we are questioning his very life and making him feel like he doesn’t exist? Hmm
“Treating the lives of trans people as a philosophical debate dehumanises trans people.”
We should instead swallow the trans cult dogma uncritically. Try not to think about it. They are of course, only human when they are allowed to dismantle women’s rights with abandon. Let’s not even talk about it. Let’s not hurt their little feelings, the only thing that matters. How dare we question them at all. :P
“They exist and always have.”
There are no such things as trans people, we don’t trip over them every time we wander out into cyberspace, we don’t hear them shouting down women, assaulting them verbally (sometimes physically), providing dangerous sociopaths with access to women only spaces, or grooming children. They are like Sasquatches, urban legends, fake news. Right, got it. :P
If it’s not a philosophical debate, then these trans cultists who have claimed PhDhood, and fashion themselves “philosophers” don’t exist either, right? :P
(Speaking of *actual* philosophers, I’m getting to the end of Material Girls today, and Prof. Stock is outstanding.) :)
Yes GW, her book is eminently clear, logical, well reasoned, and agreeable. I think it would be persuasive for someone who is maybe on the fence, doesn’t understand the problems, or has been convinced of the trans dogma without thinking about it critically. The more stubborn hardcore wokesters might not be convinced, the blind followers, or those who are not capable of understanding this kind of writing, but it’s worth a shot. I recommend reading it primarily because I love a good bit of well written philosophy, but not everyone does. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@6 She doesn’t use them personally that I have seen, no. I don’t think I have seen Prof. Stock insist on being referred to in any specific way, pronoun-wise. I think her reference to others with *their* preferred pronouns depends on whether she’s addressing them directly or referring to them in the third person. I don’t have enough information to make that assessment. I don’t think she’s deliberately rude by not using them like I am, if that’s what you’re asking. ;)
I think her reference to others with *their* preferred pronouns depends on whether she’s addressing them directly or referring to them in the third person.
Wait, no, sorry, I misread. I mean, yes, saying “you” vs. “she” is definitely an example of using language, but what I meant was: She refers to, say, Caitlyn Jenner or Jonathan Yaniv as “she” when she speaks of them in the third person, yes? (I sure hope that she hasn’t had the misfortune of being in a situation where she would need to refer to either of those unpleasant men as “you”!)
Yes it is. They’re alive. They have lives. I’m not claiming anyone should debate whether or not they’re alive and I’m perfectly aware of the bogus existence claims made by TAs. I’ve written about that here many, many times. I’m not quite as new to this as you seem to think.
I’m saying that there are discussions to be had about the lives of (alive, existing) people who call themselves trans. I’m saying that the ideas of what it means to be or not to be trans – if it means anything at all – must be discussed. I’m saying that the implications of these ideas need to be examined philosophically, scientifically and practically.
Jo Grady is trying to stop us doing that using a weaponised argument, deliberately misapplied.
That is what I am saying; that the argument that we should never philosophise about the lives of real people is a bogus one. It’s a deliberate attempt to shut down discussion. It misuses a perfectly good argument: that we need to consider people as living people as well as in the abstract. It’s every bit as dishonest as the false claim that anyone debates the existence of people who say they are trans.
But I know you know all this, I’ve been paying attention. The things I’m saying that I haven’t said here before are:
1. There’s a whole class of argument that people misuse in this way. It began with people citing fallacies inappropriately, but it’s grown to such an extent that at times the very concept of argument seems obsolete, and
Stock is a bit more of an accomodationist on this matter than you or I, but I don’t think that detracts from her work or makes it any less important (or less of a good read, for that matter). There’s nobody I agree with 100% on this or any other topic.
Stock is a bit more of an accomodationist on this matter than you or I, but I don’t think that detracts from her work or makes it any less important (or less of a good read, for that matter).
It might even increase the value of her work, because of being more palatable to people on the fence or or believers in TRA dogma who don’t really understand the issues. But on the other hand it might detract from it because it might make sentences more unclear (“and then she raped three prisoners” … wait, we’re talking about a male here? Or a female? Confusing). I should probably read the book.
Latsot @11 yes, thank you. She does use them in the book GW @9, out of common respect I think. I personally don’t in some cases, because I don’t have much respect for Bruce Jenner or Rhys McKinnon, or anyone of their ilk. I tend to calls ’em like I sees ’em. :P
and @12, Yes, you should read it. I will say that if nothing else, her keen synopsis of the debate and history of it would at least give someone an idea of what’s going on, and understand the central questions and concepts.
That is what I am saying; that the argument that we should never philosophise about the lives of real people is a bogus one. It’s a deliberate attempt to shut down discussion. It misuses a perfectly good argument: that we need to consider people as living people as well as in the abstract.
Are you saying that the argument goes:
(1) We must consider the lived experience of people.
∴ (2) The only relevant possible argument is (1), above. If I cite one person’s personal testimony of his or her lived experience, then any other possible argument is irrelevant and bigoted, and must be silenced immediately.
@16 I would agree, and people (who profess that something matters) that dismiss philosophical debate out of hand probably either don’t know what it is, aren’t intelligent enough to engage in it (or any nuanced discussion), or have simply already taken sides and are going to stubbornly root for their team. I think Grady in this context is probably in the latter category (he said, charitably) because the ongoing bullshit involved in the debate, or series of arguments, could easily wear a person down.
All good arguments get weaponised sooner or later. This depresses me.
It’s a goodargument to say that policies should not be made in the abstract without reference to the people they affect.
It’s a bad argument to say that we should never debate hypothetical possibilities or consider abstract propositions when making policy.
I mean, that second one is just plain fucking nuts. Of course we need to treat the lives of trans people (and all people) as a philosophical debate at times. Not doing so means we have to capitulate with every demand and end up with groups like Stonewall telling everyone what to do despite having a clear, sinister agenda and no more expertise in the matter than anyone else.
People are treating entire modes of argument as soundbites they can copy and paste into every statement they make. They’ve forgotten what those modes are for, if they even knew what to begin with.
It’s just so wilfully ignorant. To me, it says that a person doesn’t really have an argument, so they’re pasting in something that sounds like one. Something that has successfully been used as an argument in the past. Ignorant. Lazy. Stupid. I don’t know why these people don’t do away with the text box in their Twitter client altogether and just have a series of boxes to tick for each Tweet.
It’s not their lives. Nobody argues that trans-identified people are not alive. Nobody argues that they don’t exist. This is the slight of hand that the TRA s want to cllaim about us. No, we simply argue that we don’t have to believe false claims that they make about themselves. Donald Trump argues that he is still the rightful president of the US. We are not obligated to believe that false claim — but we’re not treating his life as a philosophical debate. He exists. He is alive. Will Trumpists learn an argument tactic from TRAs, and now start claiming that we are questioning his very life and making him feel like he doesn’t exist? Hmm
“Treating the lives of trans people as a philosophical debate dehumanises trans people.”
We should instead swallow the trans cult dogma uncritically. Try not to think about it. They are of course, only human when they are allowed to dismantle women’s rights with abandon. Let’s not even talk about it. Let’s not hurt their little feelings, the only thing that matters. How dare we question them at all. :P
“They exist and always have.”
There are no such things as trans people, we don’t trip over them every time we wander out into cyberspace, we don’t hear them shouting down women, assaulting them verbally (sometimes physically), providing dangerous sociopaths with access to women only spaces, or grooming children. They are like Sasquatches, urban legends, fake news. Right, got it. :P
If it’s not a philosophical debate, then these trans cultists who have claimed PhDhood, and fashion themselves “philosophers” don’t exist either, right? :P
(Speaking of *actual* philosophers, I’m getting to the end of Material Girls today, and Prof. Stock is outstanding.) :)
Nice. Do you think it would be a good book to win deluded friends over to the Gender Critical position? I’m waiting for Helen Joyce’s book.
Yes GW, her book is eminently clear, logical, well reasoned, and agreeable. I think it would be persuasive for someone who is maybe on the fence, doesn’t understand the problems, or has been convinced of the trans dogma without thinking about it critically. The more stubborn hardcore wokesters might not be convinced, the blind followers, or those who are not capable of understanding this kind of writing, but it’s worth a shot. I recommend reading it primarily because I love a good bit of well written philosophy, but not everyone does. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
She uses “preferred pronouns”, doesn’t she?
@6 She doesn’t use them personally that I have seen, no. I don’t think I have seen Prof. Stock insist on being referred to in any specific way, pronoun-wise. I think her reference to others with *their* preferred pronouns depends on whether she’s addressing them directly or referring to them in the third person. I don’t have enough information to make that assessment. I don’t think she’s deliberately rude by not using them like I am, if that’s what you’re asking. ;)
Yes, that’s what I mean by “to use” language.
Wait, no, sorry, I misread. I mean, yes, saying “you” vs. “she” is definitely an example of using language, but what I meant was: She refers to, say, Caitlyn Jenner or Jonathan Yaniv as “she” when she speaks of them in the third person, yes? (I sure hope that she hasn’t had the misfortune of being in a situation where she would need to refer to either of those unpleasant men as “you”!)
GW:
Yes it is. They’re alive. They have lives. I’m not claiming anyone should debate whether or not they’re alive and I’m perfectly aware of the bogus existence claims made by TAs. I’ve written about that here many, many times. I’m not quite as new to this as you seem to think.
I’m saying that there are discussions to be had about the lives of (alive, existing) people who call themselves trans. I’m saying that the ideas of what it means to be or not to be trans – if it means anything at all – must be discussed. I’m saying that the implications of these ideas need to be examined philosophically, scientifically and practically.
Jo Grady is trying to stop us doing that using a weaponised argument, deliberately misapplied.
That is what I am saying; that the argument that we should never philosophise about the lives of real people is a bogus one. It’s a deliberate attempt to shut down discussion. It misuses a perfectly good argument: that we need to consider people as living people as well as in the abstract. It’s every bit as dishonest as the false claim that anyone debates the existence of people who say they are trans.
But I know you know all this, I’ve been paying attention. The things I’m saying that I haven’t said here before are:
1. There’s a whole class of argument that people misuse in this way. It began with people citing fallacies inappropriately, but it’s grown to such an extent that at times the very concept of argument seems obsolete, and
2. This really fucking annoys me.
GW@9
Stock is a bit more of an accomodationist on this matter than you or I, but I don’t think that detracts from her work or makes it any less important (or less of a good read, for that matter). There’s nobody I agree with 100% on this or any other topic.
It might even increase the value of her work, because of being more palatable to people on the fence or or believers in TRA dogma who don’t really understand the issues. But on the other hand it might detract from it because it might make sentences more unclear (“and then she raped three prisoners” … wait, we’re talking about a male here? Or a female? Confusing). I should probably read the book.
Latsot @11 yes, thank you. She does use them in the book GW @9, out of common respect I think. I personally don’t in some cases, because I don’t have much respect for Bruce Jenner or Rhys McKinnon, or anyone of their ilk. I tend to calls ’em like I sees ’em. :P
and @12, Yes, you should read it. I will say that if nothing else, her keen synopsis of the debate and history of it would at least give someone an idea of what’s going on, and understand the central questions and concepts.
Are you saying that the argument goes:
(1) We must consider the lived experience of people.
∴ (2) The only relevant possible argument is (1), above. If I cite one person’s personal testimony of his or her lived experience, then any other possible argument is irrelevant and bigoted, and must be silenced immediately.
GW, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about now.
I don’t know how to say this any more clearly.
I’m annoyed when people make false allusions to arguments without actually making those arguments, then act as though they won. That’s all.
@16 I would agree, and people (who profess that something matters) that dismiss philosophical debate out of hand probably either don’t know what it is, aren’t intelligent enough to engage in it (or any nuanced discussion), or have simply already taken sides and are going to stubbornly root for their team. I think Grady in this context is probably in the latter category (he said, charitably) because the ongoing bullshit involved in the debate, or series of arguments, could easily wear a person down.