Firstly forgive spelling errors and grammar in this reponse, it has been written quickly
General remarks...
Much of Jason’s article is specious, it is a rebuttal of a very different set of arguments than the arguments I actually made. Jason sets up many strawmen and bases his critique of my work of these irrelevant points. His article attempts to smear me as racist, far right, xenophobic, radically individualistic, nationalistic, biological essentialist - without a shred of proof. I will leave readers to make up their own minds about what I actually wrote in my essay.
My notes as I go through his article….
First paragraph misses the point about preferred pronouns being harmful to trans people in the long term
He goes on to make justification for his essay in which he states and I paraphrase; it is absurd that kindness is used as a weapon to keep women in their place, and it is ridiculous that being kind invited sexual assault and violence. But from the anecdotal accounts of women and from research into the nature of male on female violence, this is PRECISELY what happens in real life. Jason might not realise this because he has not experienced it. But in all honestly, he needs to start taking women points of view more seriously.
“bordering on hate speech’ is a strong accusation and needs to be backed up by strong evidence - of which their is none
Pronouns are Rohynol is not a cheap rhetoric trick, Jason misunderstands the meaning of this article and quote. The point is not to equate using preferred pronouns with date rape, the point is to show that just as Rohynol renders people into unconsciousness, so too can PP render women and girls unable to trust their own instincts. And so much of his argument which flows from this is irrelevant and baseless.
Jason states we have precious little access to objective truth - this is wrong, scientific method is the most powerful method of making objective observable and verifiable truths about material reality.
Jason recognises the potential for medical malpractice but fails to address the point I made about how the AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH to treatment for trans people is dangerous
Jason suggests I am denying the reality of gender dysphoria - nowhere do I suggest this, I was arguing that there are better ways to care for confused young people
Jason recognises there is an ongoing process of patriarchal domination and yet fails to see how the tenets and moral obligations for women in transgender ideology is PRECISELY a new form of domination
J goes on to argue TW are victims of this domination - my view is that some are, but increasingly they are also ACTORS in this domination
Js argument about how my views of TW are like right wing views of immigrants is specious and disingenuous
In any case making a comparison between TW being seen as illegal immigrants is inaccurate - one is denying other human beings a place to take refuge and live, the other denying that men are women, is a scientific fact not a moral or ethical act
More arguments about how my essay is similar to the rise of the far right is demonstrably nonsensical and is a empty slur on my character
J seems unaware that in arguing for the integrity of single sex spaces he leaves himself open to accusations of transphobia - this accusation has been made many times
Js rant about the Sun newspaper is irrelevant - however when he denies the issue about TW sexually assaulting girls and women - he fails to understand that these incidents happen precisely because social norms have been challenged by trans ideology and men have effectively been given access to women’s spaces - there are no space spaces left for women to take refuge in. women are effectively pushed out of social life
J argues for proper safeguards - but single sex spaces were very effective safeguards and these are being taken away by the social pressure to accept that men can be women
Section about right wing Islamaphobia is irrelevant. And equating my comment about women ‘not being a costume’ as being right wing xenophobia is preposterous, because xenophobia involves stereotyping and hating a group of people because of their skin colour or nationality, saying men are not women is making a statement of biological fact.
What is very relevant on the other hand is this “Rather, the truth is that everyone is a potential rapist or abuser — man or woman”. This is a version of the ‘not all men and women can be violent too’ argument mostly put forward by mens rights activists. It is a nonsense argument which ignores the facts about male and female violence. The vast majority of violence is carried out by men. Men make up approx 95% of all sexual crimes. Further, women by definition in British law cannot rape, only men can rape. It is extremely important to look at the facts when making such claims.
Jason is mistaken when he interprets my point about the ‘Wages of Womanhood” as a definition of woman, I clearly state elsewhere that a woman is a adult female and a girl is female child. Rather, my Wages Of Womanhood section was to explain why many woman feel offended by men claiming they can be women because women live through a female bio/sexual/social experience that no man can experience
Js quip about me enjoying quoting scripture back is vanity - that was not my purpose, I am not interested in such empty games
Jason biblical version of anthology is irrelevant, leaning on Genesis to explain transgenderism would be like me leaning on Jungian formulations of the anima and animus - neither of these speculative ventures have any place in formulating law and social practise about sex segregated services because these venture are completely unverifiable
J offers a formulation of transgenderism which could be taken directly from the Queer Theory handbook. He states sex is assigned at birth rather then observed - this is absurd and factually incorrect
J’s argument about how I use Marxist/Leninist analysis in defining women as a class is a complete projection on Jason’s part, nowhere do I mention Marx. I referred to women as a SEX CLASS - a class of biological females different from men, so his entire takedown of Marxism is irrelevant
J goes on to build another strawman argument about gender critical feminism is nationalism - where he gets this from is anyones guess. It seems like another attempt to impugn my character.
Jason moves on to argue that despite a long history of man’s inhumanity to man and that women have every right to fear male violence, that male violence is not an absolute. And that lesbians complaints about being coerced into having sex with men can be simply solved by saying no. Both are idealistic and unrealistic in the extreme. It demonstrates not only that Jason fails to understand and empathise with women’s profound concerns, and lived reality of violence, but that he also fails to listen to women properly and accept their viewpoint. Instead think he knows better by appealing to how much better men can behave and thus we should not be fearful. To that argument I say this, when man have stopped murdering women, raping, beating and bullying us for 100 years, maybe women will begin to trust that they are not dangerous. But the REALITY is that men have behaved like this from the beginning of time, we have no faith that there will be some transformation of consciousness any time soon. I don’t care if this is offensive to Jason, it is more offensive to the women who are raped, beaten and murdered. (Thus single sex spaces and the integrity of the word woman need to be upheld)
J says I don’t speak for all women. This is true, but research shows I speak for the vast majority
Irish Health Service Executive’s definition of gender dyphoria is wrong - there is no scientific evidence for gender developing in utero - Jason is making an appeal to authority rather than using critical analysis of scientific facts - sex develops in utero
Jason denies that transgenderism is an ideology; but that is precisely what it is, it is a set of irrational non scientific doctrines which cannot be verified and needs to be taken on faith. Further the manner in which this ideology is inflicted on society has all the hallmarks of a cult
Jason argues is is a civil rights movement; nowhere does he identity which civil rights trans people already have and do not have. The fact is that is Britain they have the same civil rights as everyone else - as I stated in my essay
His essay goes on to make another attempt to associate my arguments with racist right wing individualism yet provides NO evidence from my essay of an such thing - it is another offensive strawman
Similarly his quip about me using ‘literary terrorism’ need to be treated with the contempt it deserves
My point about the ‘burden of existence’ is not a denial of a person’s humanity or worth or a denial of the human rights - the point was that it is extraordinary to makes a claim that “a transperson’s identity is depending ENTIRELY upon the validation of others. This is perhaps why so many trans people argue that, in failing to observe their pronouns, they are being erased”
All in all Jason largely fails to address the main points on my essay and we are no further forward in reconciliation to two positions. Jason believes that gender is metaphysical reality which can be traced historically back through biblical anthropology; I believe that gender is a social construct; a set of beliefs about how males and females should behave and that it is not developed in the womb rather is learned through our socialisation. Jason believe that it is a kind of xenophobia to deny men the right to the name woman. I state categorically that science demonstrates that men and women are two sex classes different from each other. And although not mentioned directly yet, the two sexes are differentiated by large and small gametes. Jason believes that a man can have some idea of what it means to be a women. I deny this because being a women means living in a female body. Jason believes that is it offensive and morally wrong to deny preferred pronouns because it fails to acknowledge the subjective reality of that person. I believe that it is harmful to both trans people and women to give in to social pressure to use preferred pronouns. Jason believes my position is akin to far right wing views, I say this is abject nonsense. There is nothing inherently right wing about stating biological realities, indeed most gender critical women in Britain of left leaning.
There is a clash of rights, a clash of epistemologies, a clash of ontologies, a clsh between ideolism and realism and after many hundreds of words being poured out I suspect Jason will be no nearer my position than he was at the beginning.
My essay can be found here https://francesann-lumsden.medium.com/pronouns-may-cost-everything-by-frances-lumsden-992c00bc9d47
