Link to article by academics
Lorna Finlayson
Katharine Jenkins
Rosie Worsdale
17 October 2018, published online by Verso books.
This article was listed online in October 2018, and is a considered case in support of gender self-ID in law. (Considered insofar as it has a controlled tone and attempts to address points in depth, and thereby acknowledges the intelligence of the reader, unlike a great many examples of, in my view, terrible writing - particularly on this subject - put out by people claiming to be philosophers. Ah! We are all suffering from the effects if people ‘building careers’ in philosophy).
Having said that, I find this short paper published by three intersectional feminists (is that a fair description?) extremely confusing and I have come away from it feeling depressed by its narrowness, foreshortened logic and what seem to me to be deliberately perplexing rhetorical devices.
It doesn't seem to be a problem for these authors to allow that men who identify as women are women. I should not bother. (Nothing I say will persuade them, and nothing they say will persuade me. Patriarchy is their concern, as feminists, I think. So be it.) It seems to be axiomatic, and so they seem to accept gender self-ID as given, whatever may be said about it. Something very hard to pin down suggests to me that for these authors sex is not a meaningful category. But that's not what this article deals with.
It deals with the statistical fact of male violence against women, and claims that men-who-identify-as-women (well, they won't have this, because, as above, they say that such a person already is a woman, however) - the article claims that because of their gender identification, and their experience negotiating life presenting as women, male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-women (MBp-W) are statistically less given to violence against women than male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-men (MBp-M)
The authors acknowledge that there is no data to support this claim, and point to the difficulty of acquiring such data when studies into male violence on women do not distinguish between MBp-W and MBp-M. (Are the authors being ironic here? Wouldn't proposing such a study meet with resistance from people like them claiming that such a study would be "transphobic"). They then turn the case around and say that, given this lack of evidence,
"the risk allegedly posed to cis women by trans women seems purely theoretical" (!)
(To remind ourselves, the claim the authors oppose is that male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-women (MBp-W) are males, and males perpetrate violence on females, therefore MBp-Ws are a risk to women, who are adult females, and the law should not enable gender self-identification, which would permit men to enter ... etc.).
Anyway, it is a considered article. But I feel it has a serious oversight. While the authors claim that there is no evidence to deny that MBp-Ws are less violent towards women (adult females) than MBP-Ms, they fail to mention or deal with the matter of the location of male on female violence.
Having said that, I find this short paper published by three intersectional feminists (is that a fair description?) extremely confusing and I have come away from it feeling depressed by its narrowness, foreshortened logic and what seem to me to be deliberately perplexing rhetorical devices.
It doesn't seem to be a problem for these authors to allow that men who identify as women are women. I should not bother. (Nothing I say will persuade them, and nothing they say will persuade me. Patriarchy is their concern, as feminists, I think. So be it.) It seems to be axiomatic, and so they seem to accept gender self-ID as given, whatever may be said about it. Something very hard to pin down suggests to me that for these authors sex is not a meaningful category. But that's not what this article deals with.
It deals with the statistical fact of male violence against women, and claims that men-who-identify-as-women (well, they won't have this, because, as above, they say that such a person already is a woman, however) - the article claims that because of their gender identification, and their experience negotiating life presenting as women, male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-women (MBp-W) are statistically less given to violence against women than male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-men (MBp-M)
The authors acknowledge that there is no data to support this claim, and point to the difficulty of acquiring such data when studies into male violence on women do not distinguish between MBp-W and MBp-M. (Are the authors being ironic here? Wouldn't proposing such a study meet with resistance from people like them claiming that such a study would be "transphobic"). They then turn the case around and say that, given this lack of evidence,
"the risk allegedly posed to cis women by trans women seems purely theoretical" (!)
(To remind ourselves, the claim the authors oppose is that male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-women (MBp-W) are males, and males perpetrate violence on females, therefore MBp-Ws are a risk to women, who are adult females, and the law should not enable gender self-identification, which would permit men to enter ... etc.).
Anyway, it is a considered article. But I feel it has a serious oversight. While the authors claim that there is no evidence to deny that MBp-Ws are less violent towards women (adult females) than MBP-Ms, they fail to mention or deal with the matter of the location of male on female violence.
Isn't it the case that most male-on-female violence is perpetrated in the home, in relationships, in domestic settings, and at those times when there has been a rejection of the man by the woman?
Therefore, surely the critical evidence wanted (and currently lacking), concerning the supposed lesser propensity to violence against women of male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-women (MBp-W), requires there to be intimate relationships between women and MBp-Ws.
Yet hasn’t there been, at the least, a violent emotional reaction on the part of many MBp-Ws because they are being rejected by lesbian women who don’t want relationships with male-bodied persons? (The name 'TERF' has been used by MBp-Ws for women who reject them, and clearly it is sometimes used to shame and hurt?) Doesn't this reaction of MBp-Ws conform to patterns of male violence against women?
The authors seem to be asking women to accede and say to MBp-Ws “Yes, we’ll accept your promise to be less violent than average men, and we’ll have relationships with you”. But having seen MBp-Ws' violent reaction to lesbian women’s rejection of them, why should they?
Therefore, surely the critical evidence wanted (and currently lacking), concerning the supposed lesser propensity to violence against women of male-bodied-persons-who-identify-as-women (MBp-W), requires there to be intimate relationships between women and MBp-Ws.
Yet hasn’t there been, at the least, a violent emotional reaction on the part of many MBp-Ws because they are being rejected by lesbian women who don’t want relationships with male-bodied persons? (The name 'TERF' has been used by MBp-Ws for women who reject them, and clearly it is sometimes used to shame and hurt?) Doesn't this reaction of MBp-Ws conform to patterns of male violence against women?
The authors seem to be asking women to accede and say to MBp-Ws “Yes, we’ll accept your promise to be less violent than average men, and we’ll have relationships with you”. But having seen MBp-Ws' violent reaction to lesbian women’s rejection of them, why should they?
