MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Cardiff Students Want Feminist Germaine Greer Disinvited from Campus and You Already Know Why

Doesn't agree with modern left on transgender issues

YoutubeYoutubeAnother feminist intellectual finds herself in the crosshairs of the safe-spacers: Germaine Greer, a feminist academic and author, is scheduled to give a lecture at Cardiff University in Wales next month, but students are circulating a petition demanding the cancellation of the talk.

That’s because Greer, a self-proclaimed Marxist anarchist who opposes hierarchy and capitalism, is nevertheless out of step with the modern left on transgender issues: she does not recognize “men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it” as women, according to her 1999 book, The Whole Woman.

I don’t share these sentiments about the transgender community, though I would relish the opportunity to have my own views on the subject challenged by someone as knowledgeable as Greer. Leftist Cardiff students, on the other hand, couldn’t care less—their minds are already made up on the subject, and anyone who dares to disagree should be chased of campus by a pitchfork-wielding mob.

The petition, which urges Cardiff to disinvite Greer, labels her views “problematic and hateful” and maintains that her mere presence on campus would be “dangerous”:

Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.

Trans-exclusionary views should have no place in feminism or society. Such attitudes contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people - particularly trans women - both in the UK and across the world.

While debate in a University should be encouraged, hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous. Allowing Greer a platform endorses her views, and by extension, the transmisogyny which she continues to perpetuate.

Universities should prioritise the voices of the most vulnerable on their campuses, not invite speakers who seek to further marginalise them.

On the contrary, speakers who provoke discussion and upset the dominant way of thinking about an issue are exactly the kinds of people worth bringing to campus. As Spiked editor and Reason contributor Brendan O’Neill put it in his writeup of the Greer controversy:

The Cardiff censors say Greer’s ideas are ‘problematic’. That is what the PC say instead of ‘haram’. Well, we need more problematic people. A problem is a question to be answered, an obstacle to be navigated, which is exactly what students ought to be doing. Student bureaucrats’ fear of anything ‘problematic’ sums up how philistine, dogmatic and illiberal they have become.

Related: Anti-Feminist Speaker Disinvited to ‘Uncomfortable Learning’ Lecture Series. She Made Students Uncomfortable.

Photo Credit: Youtube

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Progs eating their own.....delicious.

  • Lee G||

    I find this whole post PROBLEMATIC

  • Notorious UGCC||

    *You're* a towel!

  • Krabappel||

    #shameless

  • Lee G||

    A google search of 'problematic' led me to this pot of gold.

    But Hermione is not just a reflection of the wonderful things about feminism. In her work on behalf of the equality of magical people, Hermione often flaunts her human privilege and unintentionally enforces the oppression of the house-elves, giants, goblins, trolls, and centaurs she claims to support. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix in particular, Hermione ignores or minimizes house-elf and non-human magical beings' opinions and autonomy, though she claims to have their best interest at heart. With SPEW, Hermione participates in the grand feminist tradition of devaluing, disregarding and silencing oppressed classes while centering herself and her opinions on their marginalization.
  • ||

    When you spend years filling someone's head with shit, this is what you get.

  • ||

    That is a 100% accurate reading of Harry Potter.

  • Rhywun||

    OMG this is for real? I mean, in the writer's head?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...though I would relish the opportunity to have my own views on the subject challenged by someone as knowledgeable as Greer.

    AND PUT YOURSELF IN PHYSICAL DANGER?

  • Aloysious||

    I don’t share these sentiments about the transgender community, though I would relish fetish the opportunity to have my own views on the subject challenged by someone as knowledgeable as Greer.

    Heh. Fun with words. You're welcome, Rico.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    So the "self-proclaimed Marxist anarchist who opposes hierarchy and capitalism" now represents right-wing extremism?

    Not only are the inmates running the asylum, a faction of the inmate thinks the ruling faction isn't insane enough.

    It just goes to show that no matter how crazy you are, there's somebody out there ready to out-crazy you.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    We will never reach peak derp

  • Hugh Akston||

    Where does anyone mention right-wing extremism as the reason they don't want her speaking?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Don't interrupt, I'm on a roll.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Hurry up and get to part about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

  • ||

    hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous

    They just keep upping the ante with the infantilization. You'd think there would be an upper limit but they just keep going. I mean, that's why these types always eat their own and self destruct, but...man. Where is the brake?

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    There is no brake. You have to become more and more extreme to keep showing your place in the social hierarchy as a compassion elitist.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I would like to see your very being challenged with oppressive hate speech SANCTIONED BY THOSE YOU EXPECT TO KEEP YOU SAFE and see how long you would survive before succumbing. Not very long, I would guess. They have to bury you in a special sized box as rigor mortis would set in while you were still in the fetal position, your last hours spent unable to defend yourself against the onslaught of phobic bashing in word form.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Your nanoagressions are problematic, shitlord.

  • SugarFree||

    Feminist cisPhysicists announced this week that after running two nanoaggressions through the Derpa Facility's Superconfronter of a Certain Size, they now feel like picoaggressions exist.

  • ||

    You are pure, concentrated evil. I like it.

  • SugarFree||

    You are pure, concentrated evil.

    I have been aggressed against! Quick, measure it! What? Damn you, Heisenberg!!!

  • ||

    You know, I open the door for a Time Bandits reference or quote, and you just don't deliver. Maybe you really are evil.

  • Al Sharpton||

    LASERS! eight o' clock, day one! peww!, arggh!.....Sorry.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Shhh, we have to save picoaggressions for when nanoaggressions appear in the mainstream media so we can prove how cool and edgy we are.

  • Citizen X||

    Meh, lemme know when we're ready to roll out femtoaggressions.

  • plusafdotcom||

    atto-boy!

    But, given the gravitas of these aggressions, perhaps there's a Boson deep inside?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    There is no brake.

    Well, yes. Yes, there is. You get rid of the subsidies for higher education, this shit goes away. Otherwise, yeah, it really will just keep getting worse.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

  • Free Society||

    Compelling and rich.

  • ||

    This is very interesting article. Thanks.

  • ||

    This is very interesting article. Thanks.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Sargon had something related to that today on his new-fangled YouTubes thingamawhitchie.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

  • B.P.||

    Transmisogyny is an exciting new one for me.

  • B.P.||

    Oops. Should've been posted down one comment. I thought PBrooks was going to get this threading thing fixed.

  • ||

    Agreed.

    One or two more victim groups and we're gonna need an IUPAC-style nomenclature scheme to keep track of the microaggressions.

  • Al Sharpton||

    I'm holding out for the corollary term, Transmisandry. I can almost taste the sticky sweetness of it now.

  • Jerryskids||

    That letter sounds like an entry into the "How Many Times Can You Use 'Trans' In A Single Communication?" contest. And, Jesus, isn't Germaine Greer like an honorary person of color or some shit by now where you're not even allowed to criticize her? Or am I thinking of Gloria Steinem?

  • ||

    You have forgotten your Bezmenov (on useful idiots).

    "No matter how much information they have they cannot come to a sensible conclusion. They are programmed to behave in one way only. In every situation they respond the same."

  • GILMORE™||

    "I don’t share these sentiments about the transgender community"

    Who @#*($&@( cares?

    Why is it necessary to insert these caveats whenever even mentioning someone else's opinion?

    If you were covering economic issues and were describing someone who believes Fed policy was great/horrible, would you feel the need to remind readers your own support or rejection for those ideas?

    If you were covering a scientific issue like Climate Change, would you feel compelled to disavow any point of view mentioned which deviated slightly from your own....?

    Its fucking retarded. Her opinion is her own. Your mention of it the person and describing their views doesn't require you to morally absolve yourself in public for doing so. Its not even relevant to the story being told.

    Its a sign of how pernicious and threatening this social-justice thought-policing is when writers need to first wave their partisan Red-Cross armbands in the air to ensure they aren't shot-down for even daring to mention personas that are considered "impure" by the SJW Gestapo.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    It was an awkward way to transition to saying that the Cardiff University students were closed minded.

  • B.P.||

    "Her opinion is her own."

    You obviously didn't read the petition quoted above...

    "Allowing Greer a platform endorses her views, and by extension, the transmisogyny which she continues to perpetuate."

  • ||

    "So, in conclusion, we can only allow speakers at this university who tell us that we were already right about everything."

    I would like to say I'm joking, but really that's almost literally what they're saying.

  • albo||

    It's more like "Our opinion is yours. If you know what's good for you."

  • The Shrubber's Woodchipper||

    Your words are hurtful. You must be some cislord who does not recognize “men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it” as women. Robby is good people and wants you be be sure to know that he disagrees. Quit being so mean.

  • ||

    Her opinion is her own. Your mention of it the person and describing their views doesn't require you to morally absolve yourself in public for doing so. Its not even relevant to the story being told.

    It is relevant, but you cut out the second half of Robby's sentence.

    I don’t share these sentiments about the transgender community, though I would relish the opportunity to have my own views on the subject challenged by someone as knowledgeable as Greer.

    Unlike the Cardiff students, Robby sees value in having a discussion with someone he disagrees with.

  • GILMORE™||

    If the point was to emphasize that Greer is a significant figure in the history of "Gender Politics", and that due to her experience and knowledge her opinion deserves to be heard regardless of whether it is currently in-vogue on college campuses....

    ...I think that point can easily be made without inserting caveats about one's own personal opinion... which as noted, is entirely irrelevant.

    what's sort of ridiculous about the whole thing is the presumption that anyone is expected to even *have* an opinion on "the transgender community" at all. The vast majority's "feelings" on the subject are entirely meaningless. We're talking about half of 1% of the human population. Its like expecting the average person in Texas to opine on the Chinese "Uighur Problem". As though whatever their view might/might not be bears any significance whatsoever.

    What college kids collectively think about Trans-folk is probably = 1/1000th the significance of whomever the bouncer is at Lucky Cheng's tonight

  • GILMORE™||

    *re: Lucky Chengs - yes I know 'drag' is not 'trans'.

    the point was "some people have experience that informs their opinion". Most do not.

    most just have 'feels' on different subjects for the purpose of having a moral bumper-sticker

  • ||

    What college kids collectively think about Trans-folk is probably = 1/1000th the significance of whomever the bouncer is at Lucky Cheng's tonight, and shrinking.

    1/1000th and shrinking.

  • Calidissident||

    And yet you seem as offended by the mere presence of this sentence than the SJW Gestapo would be by its absence. Plus, as Nikki pointed out, the second half of the sentence makes it part of a relevant point to his argument.

  • GILMORE™||

    WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY MAYBE YOU HAVE ISSUES

    no, i'm pointing out something people have repeatedly pointed out over the past year+ = the frequent and ostentatious "Disclaimer" Robby inserts whenever touching upon hot-button social justice issues.

  • ||

    Did you ever consider that that might just be Robby's style? That he might just like being very polite about things?

  • Free Society||

    Listen I love Robby's style as much as the next guy. He's a really good Reason contributor but his caveats and ceding of ground is problematic and margainalizing to those whom are often annoyed by caveats and social signalling.

    See what I done did there?

  • GILMORE™||

    " he might just like being very polite about things?"

    Politeness, last i checked, involved *refraining* from advertising your personal opinion, and being charitable to all sides to prevent the appearance of bias.

    Unless you meant another word?

  • ||

    No, I didn't. Sometimes, some people exhibit politeness by saying "I acknowledge other opinions but have my own and it is this".

    It's fucking stupid to get bogged down in "that's not politeness, this is!" Even though Robby puts in the caveats that seem to trigger (hah!) you and others so badly, where does he land in the end? Why are you so concerned with his prefacing comments that he uses to set up the article as opposed to the final point of it? I mean, what is your overall point? What are you trying to accomplish? That he should...uh...stop writing articles or something?

  • GILMORE™||

    ""What are you trying to accomplish?""

    a reduction in the amount of unnecessary Pandering in journalism? (shrug)

    "It's fucking stupid to get bogged down in "that's not politeness, this is!"'

    Words, what do they *really* mean?

    hey man, you brought the idea of 'Politeness' up, don't blame me for trying to figure out what you meant.

    By your own coin, anyone suggesting that Greer 'maybe has a point'....would be by definition socially-offensive, uncouth, rude?

  • ||

    Are you trying to be obtuse? I made no statement about what was polite or not; everyone has different metrics on that. That was my fucking point, which you apparently completely missed. Robby may have a slightly different idea of how he prefers to be "polite" (though we now know from his below comment that he's just covering all his bases for a wide readership base) than you do.

  • GILMORE™||

    So, "Politeness" is saying things you don't really mean to avoid criticism?

    For some reason i imagine a Mercedes dealer at a Bar Mitsvah

  • SugarFree||

    It's not politeness. Robby understands that he is not just writing for the handful of people in the comments section. If he doesn't include those caveats the story becomes about Robby, and not the subject he is talking about, when it is read more widely and by people who will look for a way to dismiss his argument out of hand.

  • GILMORE™||

    'If he doesn't include those caveats the story becomes about Robby, and not the subject he is talking about, when it is read more widely and by people who will look for a way to dismiss his argument out of hand."

    Well then it seems like you're saying Robby implicitly agrees with the argument that the Cardiff protesters make =

    - that even talking about someone like Greer is effectively "endorsement" unless you go out of your to specifically disavow your subject

    i.e. you can't possibly give a "platform" for Wrongthink without promoting it

  • SugarFree||

    No, I'm saying hate the game, not the player.

  • GILMORE™||

    Pimps up, hoes down

  • Free Society||

    If he doesn't include those caveats the story becomes about Robby

    The way I see it, the story is about the story until the author jumps in to offer his disclaimers about the PC compatibility of his own personal opinion. I was taught not to interject myself into my writing like this in elementary school.

  • Free Society||

    Robby has to signal that he's socially hip, he's down with it, he's cool, he wants those PC people to know that he can dig it man, before actually daring to criticize the PC puritans. It doesn't make his point wrong or arguments invalid, it's just rhetorical cowardice that understandably annoys some regular readers.

  • Calidissident||

    As opposed to socially signaling to another group by making sure he never, ever does anything that might be construed as placating the PC crowd? The people who get offended by that sort of statement from Robby are just as tiresome as the people who get offended by him not including it.

  • Free Society||

    Who got offended? I don't recall anyone claiming offense was taken.

  • GILMORE™||

    Accusing people of being "offended" is a way of pretending they don't have a rational argument

  • Free Society||

    Calidude is a bit of a social justice oriented fellow anyways. And he's less on the fence about it than Robby.

  • Robby Soave||

    Honestly, I do it just to annoy you.

    (Kidding. I think it's important to clarify that I don't agree with all the people whose speech rights I'm standing up for. I think it's important because a whole lot of ppl assume that if you're defending someone, you 100% endorse them.)

  • The Shrubber's Woodchipper||

    Then Free Society's depiction above, an accurate summary of the criticisms that has been consistently directed at you, is correct.

  • Free Society||

    Honestly, I do it just to annoy you.

    Good to know there's no ulterior motives.

    I think it's important because a whole lot of ppl assume that if you're defending someone, you 100% endorse them.

    Which might make sense if you were posting your article on Salon. I think the commentariat and Reason readers in general deserve a little more credit. But even when arguing in general, pandering to the lowest common denominator just waters down the effectiveness of the argument.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I think the commentariat and Reason readers in general deserve a little more credit.

    I wouldn't be too sure about that.

  • Robby Soave||

    But I'm mainly writing with a non-Reason audience in mind. The goal is to spread libertarianism.

    Or else every article I write could just be: "Ha, look at this! The worst." Because you all already get it.

  • Free Society||

    The goal is to spread libertarianism.

    Some just disagree with how you cede ground or appear to accept their premises in order to do that. Some would even call that counterproductive. I don't hate you Robby, no one could hate a guy with hair like yours.

  • GILMORE™||

    :"no one could hate a guy with hair like yours"

    Well, balding people might get jealous.

    just saying. not me!! its just thin!

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Shilling for Big Word!

  • Citizen X||

    Live by the identity politics, die by the identity politics.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Is it a violation of libertarian free speech ethics if I believe that use of the word "problematic" in this context should be punished by slow torture?

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    It's not a violation but it's problematic.

  • grrizzly||

    But what if it is literally problematic?

  • Slumbrew||

    Juvenile Bluster/2016!

  • AlgerHiss||

    For you “lgbt” a**holes out there, here’s a dare for you.

    I just helped someone go on Medicare. You MUST declare your gender when doing this. However, for some strange reason, the feds aren’t yet sensitive to all of your dumb-assed “gender fluidity” nonsense.

    So here’s the dare: If a PSA test is done on you, I freak’n dare you to check off female.

    C’mon tough guy. I dare you. Go ahead, show them who’s boss.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait until men start lining up for low-interest women-owned business loans from their respective cities.

  • Rhywun||

    Unless the loan application requires a doctor's note to prove you're a woman, how are they going to know what's going on down there?

  • Rhywun||

    Um... "LGBT" includes cis-shitlords like myself who are perfectly comfortable with their "assigned gender". Please be less ignorant in the future.

  • Citizen X||

    Cishomo oppressor!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    “men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it” as women, according to her 1999 book, The Whole Woman.

    Of course not. If feminism is going to paint itself as a victim class suffering from generations of institutional discrimination, then if you "became a woman" 11 minutes ago by declaring yourself so, you don't get to bask in the warm, comforting heat lamp of victimhood.

    You watch, the progressive establishment will start drawing very bright lines on who's really a woman, and who's not.

  • ||

    They don't need to start; TERFs staked out this territory years ago. But it's the "progressive establishment" that disagrees.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    BTW: I had to google TERF. It was like a flashback to the 90s.

    Anyhoo, when I say "progressive establishment", I'm talking about the mainstream (what's sometimes referred to as 'liberal') folks that make up your bluer-than-blue-found-in-nature-blue city governments that have entire institutions established around stuff like 'women-owned businesses' and all the other government goodies that get handed out based on gender.

    YMMV

  • ||

    Yeah, you could be right about that. It's very hard to say.

    Google "cotton ceiling" if you really want to have fun.

  • albo||

    I weep for the future

  • Rhywun||

    While debate in a University should be encouraged, ...

    LOL

    This is from the Mad-Libs "College Petition" edition.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    BUT...!

  • John||

    Greer is right. The idea of someone being "transgendered" is facially absurd. If there is such a thing as "gender" outside of your body, then it is a social construct like feminists like Greer claim it is. If there is not, then you can't be two things at once. Your brain is part of your body. If your body is "female" then your brain is female. Do you have a "female" liver?

    There is not a single bit of scientific evidence that there is any such thing as a "female" or "male brain" existing in a male body or even a workable definition of such a thing. The entire thing is just made up bullshit to justify a new victim group. That is it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Science isn't the whole of epistemology.

  • John||

    Sure. Lets take science out of it. To say that there is such a thing as having a different gendered brain from your body is to embrace dualism. It is to say that it doesn't matter what my DNA is or what hormones flow through my body or what genitalia I have, there is this disembodied self that is separate from that such that it can be the other gender. Moreover, that self is not some societal construct. It is independent of experience. I am a woman even though i was treated as a man my entire life and have a man's body.

    That is fucking nonsense. There is no other way to describe it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm not sure claiming to be transgender requires the claim that genetics and phenotypes don't matter. Rather it seems to me that the claim is that you feel extremely at odds with the gendered expectations that go along with the junk in your pants.

    And transgenderism doesn't develop in a vacuum. It's precisely because of your experiences and reactions from other people that you develop affinities one way or the other.

  • John||

    Rather it seems to me that the claim is that you feel extremely at odds with the gendered expectations that go along with the junk in your pants.

    Which is just another way of saying that there is something outside of your body that can be at odds with what that body is. So what, you are a male but you feel attracted towards the famine? Why does that make you no longer a male such that you can now claim to be the other gender? To say that you can do that is to say there is a self that exists outside of and can be at odds with your body. And that is called duelism.

  • Hugh Akston||

    There are three things at play here: your physical body, your mental/emotional/experiential personality, and the gendered expectations of the society in which you live.

    The body and personality are inseparable, but you can still feel a greater or lesser affinity for the gender that you've been assigned because of your body.

    So the self isn't necessarily rejecting the body so much as the gendered cultural baggage that goes along with it.

    There's nothing metaphysically dualistic about that.

  • John||

    The body and personality are inseparable,

    If that is true, then your personality can't be what your body isn't. They are inseparable meaning if your body is male you are male. The only way your personality is female and body male is if your personality and body are separable and that is dualism.

    So the self isn't necessarily rejecting the body so much as the gendered cultural baggage that goes along with it.

    If you are "rejecting the baggage" then you are saying there is personality trait called "gender" that exists independent of your body. That is duelism. The mere statement that "I reject the cultural baggage that goes along with my body" necessarily implies an "I" that exists outside of my body.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I have said repeatedly that what you are rejecting is the culture, not the body or the personality. I'm not sure how I can state it any more clearly.

  • John||

    And Hugh, you can't seem to understand that in order for there to be a "you" to reject anything, it has to be separate from your body. And being transgendered is not just rejecting the culture. If it were, people would not have operations to change their body.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I really don't understand why the body and mind have to be separate. I thought dualism went out of fashion back when God died.

    And people change their bodies to match (or challenge) the expectations of the culture in which they live every day. That's why we have things like razors, hair dye, colored contacts, and gym memberships.

  • Citizen X||

    Not me, man. I look exactly how society thinks i'd look.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You are problematic.

  • The Shrubber's Woodchipper||

    If gender is a social construct, why are the LGBTQ people so obsessed about it? If someone disagrees with their 'gender identity', there retort should simply be, 'That's, like, your opinion, man!', and that should be the end of it.

  • John||

    Exactly. You can't square the transgendered view of gender and the feminist view of it being a social construct.

  • Citizen X||

    ...which is exactly why Greer got disinvited to speak, and why the progressive meta-Hobbesian vision of society as a war of all interest groups against all interest groups is logically inconsistent and unsustainable.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, unfortunately, there is an element that claims that if YOU don't participate in THEIR gender fluidity, that YOU are INVALIDATING their identity.

    It's utterly fucked up beyond laughable, but I understand that that's the argument.

    I really thought that Dave Chapelle asked the best question that I haven't really seen widely addressed: Sure, you can identify yourself as whatever you want, but how much am I required to participate in it?

  • ||

    If there is such a thing as "gender" outside of your body, then it is a social construct like feminists like Greer claim it is.

    If that is the case, why is it impossible to be transgender? I really don't understand your argument.

  • John||

    Because people who claim to be transgendered were raised and treated as the opposite gender they claim to be. If gender is a social construct, then you are the gender that society constructs on you. This is why feminists claim there are no innate differences between the sexes. We just think there are because we all have this social construct of gender enforced on us by society and our upbringing.

    Transgendered in contrast claim there is such a thing as gender that you are born with and exists beyond whatever society enforces on you. It is not a social construct but some kind of innate quality about it.

  • lap83||

    It's funny, if a man embodies the social construct of masculinity he's sexist. If a woman embodies the social construct of femininity she's exploited. If a transgendered person embodies the social construct that is opposite to their biological gender, they're...courageous?

  • John||

    That is the other crazy thing about all of this. It enforces the most retrogressive view of gender. It basically tells people who don't fit some masculine or female ideal that they really are not the gender they seem to be.

    Think about it, what makes you the other gender? Why can't someone just be a really effeminate man who likes to play with dolls and wear women's clothes? Why does his affinity towards the famine make him no longer a man? He is only no longer a man if you believe that there is something about being male that precludes you being too feminine, which when you think about it is a really regressive and oppressive view of gender.

  • ||

    I would definitely agree with the argument that, at this point at least, transgenderism seems to reinforce a lot of traditional gender norms and expectations.

  • John||

    It is really damaging to kids. Not everyone is Mike Rowe or Jessica Albe. You take a kid who doesn't fit the norm is a boy and a bit effeminate or a girl who is more masculine and instead of telling them to accept themselves as they are, we are now telling them they are really the wrong sex. Fuck you. Why can't someone be feminine and also be a man or vice versa? We are what are DNA says we are. If I don't fit your definition of a male, then change your definition. Don't tell me I am some kind of cosmic screw up.

  • lap83||

    That reminds me of something I've noticed among most of the trans people I've known. There is a definite tendency to emulate the most cartoonish version of the opposite gender. Which is fine, but it doesn't support the idea that at the root of their condition is a genuine feeling of being the wrong gender. No one feels like a cartoon.

  • ||

    Ah, okay. I kind of see what you're saying.

    If gender is a social construct, then you are the gender that society constructs on you.

    That's not really what that means. If gender is a social construct, that means society has constructed a whole set off stuff that it calls "feminine" and a whole set of stuff that it calls "masculine."

    People will automatically put you in a box based on that—but you will not necessarily feel like you fit in that box. You might feel like it doesn't describe you at all, which could lead you to feel alienated from the society that constructed those definitions.

    You might realize you feel like you fit into the other box better.

    And that is when you decide you are transgender.

    Transgendered in contrast claim there is such a thing as gender that you are born with and exists beyond whatever society enforces on you. It is not a social construct but some kind of innate quality about it.

    Yeah, because your actual personality is innate. There is no rule that says your actual, real-life self is going to line up with the self that society assumes you are.

  • John||

    Nikki,

    If you have an innate personality and that personality can have a gender, then gender is not a social construct. It is an innate quality that you have. And if that innate quality exists independent of your body, then it is something like a soul.

  • ||

    Personally, I would say that your personality can't "have" a gender, but can fit more or less into the boxes created by society for gender.

    As a cisperson I do not have anything like the same feelings about gender that I see in the trans community. It is not something that is very meaningful to me, but clearly it is very meaningful to them.

  • John||

    I think your gender is whatever your DNA is. But your DNA doesn't determine who you are or how you act. If your desires and behaviors don't fit my definition of what your gender is, the problem is my definition not you. You are what you are. You don't need to change your body to something else just because you don't fit mine or anyone else's view of what you should be.

    I find the entire concept of transgenderism to be profundly dehumanizing to people.

  • ||

    I get exactly what you're saying. It's not like I am a perfect stereotype of a "woman" (no one really is). Clearly, some people find the mismatch between their feelings and societal expectations more alienating, or perhaps have also more seriously internalized those expectations.

  • ||

    "You are what you are. You don't need to change your body to something else just because you don't fit mine or anyone else's view of what you should be.

    I find the entire concept of transgenderism to be profundly dehumanizing to people."

    You may want to be something other than what you are. Elaborate on what's dehumanizing about the concept.

  • lap83||

    It's a religion

  • John||

    It really is. Transgendered are embracing a supernatural duelism but are too dimwitted to realize it. All they are really saying is that their soul is trapped inside the body of the opposite sex. .

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I don't know why this upsets you so much, John. I mean, there has never been a single issue come up that can utterly destroy the government system of goodies based on identity. This is it. You should be embracing transgender/identity fluidity with both arms wide open. We should be letting this issue into our homes and offering it our beer. Hell, I'd let the issue sleep with my wife-- if I were still married that is.

  • John||

    You make a fair point Diane. I agree with you that this issue is going to be the end of them for a lot of reasons. I am still bothered by the complete irrationality of it, however. I just can't help it.

  • Rhywun||

    I am still bothered by the complete irrationality of it, however. I just can't help it.

    I believe religious faith is completely irrational, but I don't let it get to me.

  • John||

    Religious faith can be entirely rational and internally consistent. You just don't buy into its underlying assumptions.

    This however is truly irrational in that it is not even internally consistent. It is not that I don't believe its underlying assumptions. It is that even if I did, it still wouldn't make any sense.

  • Rhywun||

    The underlying assumptions of religious faith are what is entirely irrational.

  • John||

    No they are not. And certainly no more irrational than people who claim there not to be a God and then run around pretending such an existence has any meaning. There are few things more irrational and silly than that. I would strongly advise you to ponder this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFmkg5dcyk

  • This Machine||

    Huh. Good find. I've been reading C.S. Lewis for years and never thought about looking for a lecture or anything like that. Illustrations are a nice touch too.

    Good to have ya back, John.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    I'm going to steal your thought from now on, I wish I came up with that myself. You have to beat SJWs with the "fairness" card they've created for themselves.

  • albo||

    I pulled my incisors and inserted fangs. I'm now officially a vampire, cishumans.

  • Free Society||

    I think that's a real thing actually.

  • Citizen X||

    Yup.

  • The Grinch||

    The left seems hell-bent on proving Orwell right. Homage to Catalonia described and expounded on this type of idiocy over seventy five years ago. They'll purify themselves out of existence. Too bad they'll take a lot of us with them.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A lot of things do seem to be turning into 'un-words' on the left.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    "While debate in a University should be encouraged, hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous."

    I hate it when people do this: "[insert statement about how you hold a particular belief here], [insert statement contradicting belief that was just stated]."

  • Real American||

    They don't want debate. They want compliance.

  • esteve7||

    they want their safe spaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

  • ||

    the female mind contains multitudes

  • The Last American Hero||

    Everything I know about Cardiff I learned from watching Dr. Who/Torchwood. Why did they spend so much time filming there - were there tax incentives involved?

  • Citizen X||

    The local Welsh crew could be paid in bricks of peat.

  • ||

    "Allowing Greer a platform endorses her views (...)."

    That's the key to this philosophy of unfree speech.

  • Real American||

    Fuck people on the margins. They deserve to be marginalized.

  • John McAdams||

    Soave "share these sentiments about the transgender community." OK, but I hope he recognizes Greer's right to have those sentiments.

    Greer is not going to assault a transgender person, nor harass anyone. She just refuses to affirm the persons claim to be something other than their biological sex.

    A libertarian ought to accept that. Nobody has a right to have their lifestyle affirmed, since that infringes on the right of others to make their own judgments.

    So live and let live.

  • Arcxjo||

    To be fair, there's only one feminist that Cardiffians agree with: Little Bo Peep.

  • ||

    John should be given the same pariah status that Tony has.

  • DesigNate||

    I don't agree with him on a number of issues, but John isn't a totalitarian douchenozzle like Tony. So not really.

  • ||

    In case you haven't noticed, this is about a movement largely driven by males (i.e., males who want to appear and be treated as women, when it is convenient to them, even if they keep their gonads and penises). These men have harassed and threatened any woman who expresses doubt about any jot and tittle of their transgender ideology.

    Too many alleged feminists have jumped on this male-dominated bandwagon either from an excess of compassion and egalitarianism or, in contrast, because they are opportunists who go where the power is. So they are happy to shut up feminists who reject a male-created and dominated transgender ideology. They’ve already had a number no platformed and through threats of violence shut down conferences in Britain.

    People have a right to change their bodies anyway they choose and to call themselves anything they like. They don't have the right to use force and fraud - including by the state - to force others to view them as women (or men in the opposite case). They don’t have the right to use state power to force their views on men and women, especially through forcing womens facilities and organizations to accept people with penises into their private restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, etc. Please feel free to speak up clearly and unambiguously on this topic instead of just making snide remarks. Thanks.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    "WAH! WAH! WAH! You have different opinion than me you wurt my wittle fewlings! WAH! WAH!" Somebody needs to start taking a bat to these PC, cry baby's faces anytime they erupt in tears, and throw four year old temper tantrums. These coddled, government schooled idiots are going to get a surprise when they go out in the real world, better yet, I'd like them to go out in a hungry lion infested jungle and cry at the lions out there, now I'd pay to see that.

  • MarkLastname||

    Did he really call Greer 'knowledgeable?'

    "I would relish having my thoughts on Jews challenged by someone as knowledgeable as Alfred Rosenberg."

    Similar kind of reasoning. Greer, God-willing, will be rememberedby our grand children as a vile and insane bigot in dire need of psychiatric treatment much as we remember Rosenberg.

    Seriously, why does this guy insist on paying these people complements? As though the respect their coreligionists have for them actually makes them worthy of respect!
    J.P. Taylor and JM Keynes were wrong but knowledgeable. Germaine Greer is just plain stupid and insane. The fact that she can conceal her stupidity with abstruse argot is no more a respectable talent than the ability to take exceptionally big shits.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online