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.
Agree x 100 about your effectiveness point. The only thing I'd add is that obviously the people taking the absolutist line aren't looking for converts, they're looking for disciples (merch buying disciples ideally) -- and if your aim is engagement rather than persuasion, then polarisation is a very powerful tool.
Yes, you're right of course. It's just so damaging to those of us who want this to end in the best way rather than carry on as a grift.
And of course, it's fair to say, that those of us who want it to end probably have financial reasons for that too. Many of us have lost work or positions of influence by taking a stance and trying to speak out. The skin in the game is real even if the end game is different.
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.
That's very kind of you. And yes, the rage of the liberal men has been really something. Pretty fun when I was working in a sector dominated by liberal men c. 2013-16. Really hope I never again have to deal with Facebook comments from colleagues calling for me to be sacked 😒
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.
Yeah... Some people's rhetoric and priorities this week have definitely been a tell that the homophobia of TRAism is not the bit they have a problem with.
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.
As I said in the post - there are people with good reasons to be anon, especially those who work in the public sector. I'd never dismiss someone out of hand for being anon, but when an anon account presumes to dictate proper conduct to women who have put their reputations on the line over this issue, I reserve the right to downgrade my interest in their opinion.
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.
Not that you're necessarily wrong, at least as far as the workplace and the pub are concerned, but in respect of most social media, national boundaries don't really exist.
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.
I think I did address the content point, but happy to reiterate and clarify. The presiding principle for me -- outside a restricted number of formal contexts -- should be individual freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. It's wrong for the bench book to dictate pronouns. It's wrong for the GC ultras to dictate pronouns. It's ok and good to express disagreement (I'd disagree forcefully with someone she-ing a rapist, or with someone using gender neutral "they" to refer to a perpetrator of male violence) but there has to be a base level recognition that pronoun usage is just a part of speech, not a magic spell that changes someone's sex.
I am also very glad Sarah wrote this! And on your other point, I don't think that using preferred pronouns implies accepting any truth claims about innate identity. I prefer a norm where we call people what they want to be called, but can also make their characteristics clear when necessary. Language is about finding mutually intelligible ways to communicate: It's notable that even the "absolutists" refer to Lia Thomas, not William, even if they use male pronouns.
Thanks both, I appreciate your responses. I think there’s something still there about gatekeeping and group membership, but maybe too long for a comments section
Do you mean gatekeeping in the sense of "who gets to be a woman"? I lean towards the Chimamanda position -- trans women are trans women -- and think "what is a woman" ceases to be a question of much importance if you treat sex as the relevant characteristic for most purposes.
The pushback you described was so over the top. Maybe they're just hot button touchy about group gatekeeping, identity ownership and a lack of humility from people seeking to join the in-group. Remember that furore about Adele wearing hair knots and a Jamaica flag bikini to Notting Hill carnival? And people in the food world losing their minds over who 'owns' a particular national dish and whether a person can, say, run a taco truck if they're not Mexican? People do care about entry to the in-group and interlopers claiming membership. As per my first comment re 'application processes' for religions.
It strikes me that so much of the vicious argument over the past 10 years has been about whether males are *requesting* entry or *presuming an entitlement to* entry to womanhood. A good faith interpretation of these ultras/ absolutists being so shouty is because they haven't processed their indignation about the previous decade's assumption of entitlement to the 'woman' in-group. As if there were no entry criteria (which has now been shored up, thanks to the women you've referred to) . OTOH, maybe some people are just attention hungry, show off, shock jock, self aggrandising trolls...?
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.
Agree x 100 about your effectiveness point. The only thing I'd add is that obviously the people taking the absolutist line aren't looking for converts, they're looking for disciples (merch buying disciples ideally) -- and if your aim is engagement rather than persuasion, then polarisation is a very powerful tool.
Yes, you're right of course. It's just so damaging to those of us who want this to end in the best way rather than carry on as a grift.
And of course, it's fair to say, that those of us who want it to end probably have financial reasons for that too. Many of us have lost work or positions of influence by taking a stance and trying to speak out. The skin in the game is real even if the end game is different.
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.
That's very kind of you. And yes, the rage of the liberal men has been really something. Pretty fun when I was working in a sector dominated by liberal men c. 2013-16. Really hope I never again have to deal with Facebook comments from colleagues calling for me to be sacked 😒
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.
Yeah... Some people's rhetoric and priorities this week have definitely been a tell that the homophobia of TRAism is not the bit they have a problem with.
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.
As I said in the post - there are people with good reasons to be anon, especially those who work in the public sector. I'd never dismiss someone out of hand for being anon, but when an anon account presumes to dictate proper conduct to women who have put their reputations on the line over this issue, I reserve the right to downgrade my interest in their opinion.
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.
I think it depends on what country you’re in. Australia is 5 years behind the United Kingdom. Feels like GC=Nazi is a common perception.
Not that you're necessarily wrong, at least as far as the workplace and the pub are concerned, but in respect of most social media, national boundaries don't really exist.
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.
I think I did address the content point, but happy to reiterate and clarify. The presiding principle for me -- outside a restricted number of formal contexts -- should be individual freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. It's wrong for the bench book to dictate pronouns. It's wrong for the GC ultras to dictate pronouns. It's ok and good to express disagreement (I'd disagree forcefully with someone she-ing a rapist, or with someone using gender neutral "they" to refer to a perpetrator of male violence) but there has to be a base level recognition that pronoun usage is just a part of speech, not a magic spell that changes someone's sex.
I am also very glad Sarah wrote this! And on your other point, I don't think that using preferred pronouns implies accepting any truth claims about innate identity. I prefer a norm where we call people what they want to be called, but can also make their characteristics clear when necessary. Language is about finding mutually intelligible ways to communicate: It's notable that even the "absolutists" refer to Lia Thomas, not William, even if they use male pronouns.
Thanks both, I appreciate your responses. I think there’s something still there about gatekeeping and group membership, but maybe too long for a comments section
Cheers :)
Do you mean gatekeeping in the sense of "who gets to be a woman"? I lean towards the Chimamanda position -- trans women are trans women -- and think "what is a woman" ceases to be a question of much importance if you treat sex as the relevant characteristic for most purposes.
The former and yes re Chimamanda's position.
The pushback you described was so over the top. Maybe they're just hot button touchy about group gatekeeping, identity ownership and a lack of humility from people seeking to join the in-group. Remember that furore about Adele wearing hair knots and a Jamaica flag bikini to Notting Hill carnival? And people in the food world losing their minds over who 'owns' a particular national dish and whether a person can, say, run a taco truck if they're not Mexican? People do care about entry to the in-group and interlopers claiming membership. As per my first comment re 'application processes' for religions.
It strikes me that so much of the vicious argument over the past 10 years has been about whether males are *requesting* entry or *presuming an entitlement to* entry to womanhood. A good faith interpretation of these ultras/ absolutists being so shouty is because they haven't processed their indignation about the previous decade's assumption of entitlement to the 'woman' in-group. As if there were no entry criteria (which has now been shored up, thanks to the women you've referred to) . OTOH, maybe some people are just attention hungry, show off, shock jock, self aggrandising trolls...?