Transgender RIghts? Ella Whelan v Sex Change Transgender India Willoughby on BBC Question Time

[ Ссылка ]


Breaking down the gender wars

[ Ссылка ]

Kathleen Stock’s new book is exactly the kind of forensic, generous intervention the ongoing trans debate sorely needs
Books

By
Ella Whelan
24 May, 2021

Entering into the debate on trans is not for the faint hearted — especially if you’re a public intellectual. Speaker invites, endorsements, book deals, scholarships and other opportunities have been whipped away in the name of “inclusivity” when individuals refuse to repeat mantras about trans women being women or denounce the realities biological sex are not make believe.

Despite representing the views of a minority of (often online) activists, the contemporary trans debate has come to dominate discussion among media types and politicians, so much so that its extreme views about sex and gender have been allowed to pose as the norm, instead of the fashionable.

It takes someone with balls (and brains, and patience) to rise above the cacophony of Twitter spats to make sense of this bizarre new world of gender wars. Kathleen Stock might laugh — or balk, as a feminist — at the suggestion that she has the gonads to take on the challenge of understanding the rise of trans politics and its implications for women. But her new book, Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism, is exactly the kind of forensic, generous intervention this toxic debate sorely needs.

Like any good philosopher, Stock begins by stating her aims — to understand what she calls the philosophical theory of “gender identity” that “gripped public consciousness” to the extent that laws, language and societal relations suddenly became subject to change. This isn’t Stock’s first foray into the subject. In fact, she is considered a hate figure by many trans activists for her commentary on the issue of gender-neutral spaces, women’s rights, and her criticism of concepts like self-identification relating to the UK Gender Recognition Act. Indeed, so awful is Stock in the eyes of some that over 600 philosophers signed an open letter objecting to the British government awarding her an OBE, claiming that the state had mistaken “transphobic fearmongering for valuable scholarship”.

I must admit, the current state of the trans debate has often left me feeling queasy. While inane trans activists shouting bigot at anyone refusing to “see them” by giving in to their every linguistic and regulatory whim is infuriating, the opposition from some alarmist feminists panicking about being in the same room as a penis is just as grating. It’s a common refrain from dismissive trans activists that those who don’t agree with them either haven’t “educated” themselves when it comes to gender theory, or that they are wilfully complicit in attempts to keep marginalised trans people downtrodden. With this in mind, I decided to approach Material Girls with half the mindset of one of Stock’s fiercest critics, looking out for evidence of unfair characterisations, lazy straw men and what’s now deridingly described as “TERF” behaviour.

There is none. Perhaps the most commendable aspect of Material Girls is its generosity towards the subject. As a philosopher, Stock is unafraid of her thesis — that being clear about the reality of sex difference is crucial for human relationships — but she spends more time getting us to understand where the other side is coming from than anything else.

Stock’s exploration of the rise of gender politics cuts through contemporary hyperbole like a knife through butter

Moving through the theory of gender identity from Judith Butler to Judith Serano while tracking its formalisation in history from the Yogyakarta Principles to contemporary demands from charities like Stonewall, Stock’s forensic exploration of the rise of gender politics cuts through contemporary characterisations and hyperbole like a knife through butter. In some places, she invites us to revelation — trans people who claim to believe that one can actually change sex are not delusional, but “immersed in a fiction”. In other places, she puts things in terms of common sense. When attempting to describe what it means to be a “man” or a “woman”, Stock reminds us that “you aren’t being invited to stipulate some arbitrary standard, you are not that powerful”. Instead, she says we should look at how we “employ” these terms in a “range of contexts”. In other words, human beings are complicated, and our understanding of each other must relate to our ability to communicate and share meaning....

свернуть