Spot on. I would add that absolutism is the single worst way to change people's minds - something anyone who thinks they are campaigning on an issue should want to do.
Sarah, thanks for everything uou've written on this subject - it's always been sane, rational and humane. I agree things have moved on, and we all need to move on with it. On the issue of anonymity and hostility, without question the worst reactions I've had to questioning trans activism and the gender identity movement has been from left/liberal men, many of whom I previously respected, but who reacted with a fury I didn't expect - it actually scared and depressed me, and I knew my job was vulnerable.. Anyway, I'm grateful to you and everyone who has stood up, calmly and with good arguments, to move things forward. Thank you.
The TRA creed holds that (1) language shapes reality at all times (2) Policing language is therefore acceptable and (3) Any language infractions are hateful. It is beyond depressing to see that mindset adopted in respect of pronouns. Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock take different views on pronouns, they manage not to scream "hold the line" at each other over the issue. It is particularly grim to see this in a week where the Kemi Badenoch writes a howitzer of a letter to the equalities committee stating in terms gender medicine is a form of gay conversion therapy. I would personally have thought that might be more important than the cancellation de jour, but it seems I overestimated how important that issue actually is to some.
Much to agree with here, Sarah, but I’d defend anonymity. My (small) Twitter account is not anon, but it was anon a few years ago when my frail & vulnerable mother was still alive (she had a landline, was in the phone book, shared my surname, and I worried some idiot would decide to call her up - unlikely but not impossible). I co-run a secret GC Facebook group with 100s of women who use their real names on the group but elsewhere are anon; our members are in care-type jobs (healthcare, midwifery education, social work, etc) at a middle or student/entry level & they cannot afford to risk constructive (or actual) dismissal, or lose promotion. Some have become braver and found support at work - but others are still fearful. Other jobs in other sectors, like the arts, are precarious….so any ‘speaking out’ is done anonymously.
I for one I'm glad you're freer to focus less on writing about this particular issue - not everyone has got out with their brain alive. It's nice to work on things which, frankly, have greater upside. In your case it's well-deserved.
'In 2024 ... social media will warmly reward you for gender-critical posts.'
This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece, and for the most part I find myself in broad agreement. But this claim is a little premature, I think. Being openly gender-critical - and I'm not talking extreme orthodoxy here, more just the acknowledgement that sex is real and important - is still an extremely risky personal policy, whether that be on social media, in the workplace or in the pub.
Hi Sarah, thank you for writing this (so Helen lewis doesn’t have to ;)
Like you, my hackles go up when told what to think.
With this piece, I note it focuses on the *style* of the arguments made by these “hold the line” absolutists. That is: who is saying this stuff, whether they’re anonymous or not, how long they’ve been involved etc.
I wonder what your counter argument would be on the *content* of their complaint. I see two points, one of policy, one of principle.
1) My understanding of the Twitter furore was that it’s a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. That is to say, If we concede about pronouns… where will it end? With Dodgy males pretending to be women to transfer into women’s prisons etc? So that’s policy. And there has definitely been a march through the institutions of this idea, which is very powerful. Pushed back by the Women you name check, thank goodness.
2) Then there’s the principle underlying this is - who gets to decide how to refer to a person who doesn’t conform between sex/ gender? Am I - or is anyone- obliged to use a particular pronoun? Why?
In other circumstances relating to recognition of identity, usually the identity group decides to recognise the would-be group joiner. I’m thinking here of various Indigenous peoples and how, for institutional purposes like official forms/ scholarships/ grants etc, it can be the case that the person needs to have some kind of recognition by their identity group. (Note: Religious orgs do the same thing, right? You have to have a certificate saying you’re a member of that church/ temple etc to get your kid into a religious school).
So there’s a point of principle: do us actual women get to say whether would-be women like Debbie Hatton can join? Why or why not. And there does need to be a reason more than “because I think so”. It needs to be collective to be in any way meaningful.
I appreciate the debate has shifted as you describe. I would find great value in a deeper discussion of the in principle concerns under these absolutists (very shouty) complaints.
Spot on. I would add that absolutism is the single worst way to change people's minds - something anyone who thinks they are campaigning on an issue should want to do.
Sarah, thanks for everything uou've written on this subject - it's always been sane, rational and humane. I agree things have moved on, and we all need to move on with it. On the issue of anonymity and hostility, without question the worst reactions I've had to questioning trans activism and the gender identity movement has been from left/liberal men, many of whom I previously respected, but who reacted with a fury I didn't expect - it actually scared and depressed me, and I knew my job was vulnerable.. Anyway, I'm grateful to you and everyone who has stood up, calmly and with good arguments, to move things forward. Thank you.
The TRA creed holds that (1) language shapes reality at all times (2) Policing language is therefore acceptable and (3) Any language infractions are hateful. It is beyond depressing to see that mindset adopted in respect of pronouns. Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock take different views on pronouns, they manage not to scream "hold the line" at each other over the issue. It is particularly grim to see this in a week where the Kemi Badenoch writes a howitzer of a letter to the equalities committee stating in terms gender medicine is a form of gay conversion therapy. I would personally have thought that might be more important than the cancellation de jour, but it seems I overestimated how important that issue actually is to some.
Much to agree with here, Sarah, but I’d defend anonymity. My (small) Twitter account is not anon, but it was anon a few years ago when my frail & vulnerable mother was still alive (she had a landline, was in the phone book, shared my surname, and I worried some idiot would decide to call her up - unlikely but not impossible). I co-run a secret GC Facebook group with 100s of women who use their real names on the group but elsewhere are anon; our members are in care-type jobs (healthcare, midwifery education, social work, etc) at a middle or student/entry level & they cannot afford to risk constructive (or actual) dismissal, or lose promotion. Some have become braver and found support at work - but others are still fearful. Other jobs in other sectors, like the arts, are precarious….so any ‘speaking out’ is done anonymously.
I for one I'm glad you're freer to focus less on writing about this particular issue - not everyone has got out with their brain alive. It's nice to work on things which, frankly, have greater upside. In your case it's well-deserved.
'In 2024 ... social media will warmly reward you for gender-critical posts.'
This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece, and for the most part I find myself in broad agreement. But this claim is a little premature, I think. Being openly gender-critical - and I'm not talking extreme orthodoxy here, more just the acknowledgement that sex is real and important - is still an extremely risky personal policy, whether that be on social media, in the workplace or in the pub.
Hi Sarah, thank you for writing this (so Helen lewis doesn’t have to ;)
Like you, my hackles go up when told what to think.
With this piece, I note it focuses on the *style* of the arguments made by these “hold the line” absolutists. That is: who is saying this stuff, whether they’re anonymous or not, how long they’ve been involved etc.
I wonder what your counter argument would be on the *content* of their complaint. I see two points, one of policy, one of principle.
1) My understanding of the Twitter furore was that it’s a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. That is to say, If we concede about pronouns… where will it end? With Dodgy males pretending to be women to transfer into women’s prisons etc? So that’s policy. And there has definitely been a march through the institutions of this idea, which is very powerful. Pushed back by the Women you name check, thank goodness.
2) Then there’s the principle underlying this is - who gets to decide how to refer to a person who doesn’t conform between sex/ gender? Am I - or is anyone- obliged to use a particular pronoun? Why?
In other circumstances relating to recognition of identity, usually the identity group decides to recognise the would-be group joiner. I’m thinking here of various Indigenous peoples and how, for institutional purposes like official forms/ scholarships/ grants etc, it can be the case that the person needs to have some kind of recognition by their identity group. (Note: Religious orgs do the same thing, right? You have to have a certificate saying you’re a member of that church/ temple etc to get your kid into a religious school).
So there’s a point of principle: do us actual women get to say whether would-be women like Debbie Hatton can join? Why or why not. And there does need to be a reason more than “because I think so”. It needs to be collective to be in any way meaningful.
I appreciate the debate has shifted as you describe. I would find great value in a deeper discussion of the in principle concerns under these absolutists (very shouty) complaints.