Graham, I was not impressed with Dr. Debra Soh. I thought she was lacking in insight on a number of issues, including the nature of gender. She fully associates the word as a substitute for sex it seems to me, very oddly given the nature of the discussion on our side and in transgender ideology itself about the nature of gender and the denial of sex, but she associates it, if I understood her properly, as a shortcut to refer back to sex which comes about as the result of the joining of gametes (egg and sperm) that form either males or females depending on chromosomes. She does not speak of gender fluidity as the activists do but that gender is real and associated with males and females. She understands that sex is biological but at one point refers to gender as biological. Radical feminists describe gender as femininity or masculinity and as being influenced by culture. Dr. Soh does not believe gender is influenced by culture, again if I understood her correctly (I was doing several things at the same time as I was listening to this over two-hour podcast). It seems to me that she undercuts her reasoning about transgenderism in that it cannot therefore be criticized as a cultural product. Radical feminists believe gender is fully influenced by culture. I am not sure I can go that far, in that, there are apparently some behaviors that are influenced by hormones and other physiological processes in both sexes. I do agree however that the way a culture conceives proper behavior on the part of males and females is an incontrovertible part of the way femininity and masculinity are formed, displayed, and practiced. I consider myself a rad fem for the most part, but I am neither a lesbian nor a separatist and some, but by no means all, radical feminist lesbians do consider femininity and masculinity as wholly influenced by culture, if I understand them properly. Dr. Soh also fell down the rabbit hole on pornography and only later, when Joe told her that her ideas about pornography were not those held by many others and he explained why, did she back down a bit and did manage to admit that it was not appropriate for children. Prostitution understood as work and not as an oppressive system that supports patriarchy probably would be accepted by her, but it wasn't mentioned. As a Liberal, by her own admittance and someone who said she has a problem with many things about feminism, she said everything goes (or words to that effect) as long as it is between two (or possibly more?) consenting adults. She completely accepts homosexuality, which is fine, and is completely against the transitioning of children, which is good, but she believes that adults should be able to transition if they wish. She alluded to homosexuality being biological, whereas no genes have been found to be associated with homosexuality or with transgenderism although birth order and twin studies have shown there to be a correlation to some extent with homosexuality. The study she mentioned about the correlation of scans of gay male brains with that of females is not one that is widely accepted, at least in my reading of the issues. So much about these issues are not yet understood. Certainly the level of hormones in the pregnant woman's body has an effect on the development of the foetus, which she mentioned, but it is not shown to be definitive in the development of homosexuality or transgenderism. She and Joe both believe that some people are naturally transgender. I do not fully accept that, as I believe culture and parental and peer and other societal influences are extremely strong and act on the individual's understanding of themselves. On the other hand, I am not averse to changing my mind of that. In transvestism for instance I believe something goes wrong with males within the family and in society that make them extremely susceptible to these kinds of fetishes. She did not discuss the environmental and psychological conditions that exist in the family that produce the idea of gender dysphoria, for instance, sexual, physical, or psychological abuse many girls and boys have in their histories as well as a propensity toward body mutilation because of the departure from gender norms and the influence of ADD or autism in the development of dysphoria. She also said in connection with pornography that it wasn't an addiction and Joe also pushed back at that in some amazement at her lack of understanding of the highly addictive nature of pornography (which can be just as harmful as addictions to gambling and to alcohol and other drugs). She seems to be totally unaware of the true nature of most of the porn that is out there and the development of trans porn, another issue that wasn't discussed, but she tried to backtrack a bit but it wasn't convincing. This is basic stuff and she was out to lunch on it. Except with her brief mention of the word feminism, she did not discuss the issues within the context of the gender-critical feminists critique of it. She did discuss briefly autogynephilia and paraphilias generally (which I gathered was the subject of her graduate dissertation) in relation to MtoF transitions of I believe heterosexual transvestites, who are overwhelming heterosexual, but did not discuss the prevalence of most transitions being that of transvestites rather than feminine-identified gay males. The condition of autogynephilias and other paraphilias was apparently new information for Joe. She failed to mention, however, the history of the development of the transgender ideology, its funders, their aims, pedophilia, drag queens at libraries and schools, and the detailed history and nature of transgenderism that one finds in reading Janice G. Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, Heather Brunskell-Evans and others. She failed to mention any of the thousands upon thousands of verbal attacks, the many job losses or demotions; deplatforming aimed at feminists who criticize transgender ideology; disruption of meeting sites or cancellation of conference venues; nor of the few actual physical attacks by trans activists on women, their spaces, etc. She never mentioned women's and girls' sports, or even the importance of maintaining separate facilities for vulnerable women, except she did mention prisons but did not mention the well-documented information about crimes committed by sex offending female-identified transgender persons in prisons against women. In fact, she totally ignored all the data that is being noted by feminist critics of this issue. I got the impression she keeps herself away from feminist criticism. That's too bad, because without that criticism one misses a great deal, if not most of the analyses out there. Both she and Joe of course spoke of the ideology as a form of religion and some of the reasons why activists and their allies and people working in academia and other societal institutions support this movement but not in depth. Altogether, I thought it was a major disappointment. Sorry.
I've just recently been wondering how Raquel Rosario Sánchez has been getting on - I hope that she's still studying in the UK, for example.
I was also thinking that it'd be great to hear from women like her and Anne Ruzylo, who've been terribly failed by the very institutions which should be protecting and assisting them. Of course, the media was interested in the scandals in which they were embroiled, but to hear from them afterwards would be potentially revelatory, I feel. Just an idea!
Excellent as ever. This should be a regular column in a national newspaper.
Thank you, Rainy. That's very kind! x
Graham, I was not impressed with Dr. Debra Soh. I thought she was lacking in insight on a number of issues, including the nature of gender. She fully associates the word as a substitute for sex it seems to me, very oddly given the nature of the discussion on our side and in transgender ideology itself about the nature of gender and the denial of sex, but she associates it, if I understood her properly, as a shortcut to refer back to sex which comes about as the result of the joining of gametes (egg and sperm) that form either males or females depending on chromosomes. She does not speak of gender fluidity as the activists do but that gender is real and associated with males and females. She understands that sex is biological but at one point refers to gender as biological. Radical feminists describe gender as femininity or masculinity and as being influenced by culture. Dr. Soh does not believe gender is influenced by culture, again if I understood her correctly (I was doing several things at the same time as I was listening to this over two-hour podcast). It seems to me that she undercuts her reasoning about transgenderism in that it cannot therefore be criticized as a cultural product. Radical feminists believe gender is fully influenced by culture. I am not sure I can go that far, in that, there are apparently some behaviors that are influenced by hormones and other physiological processes in both sexes. I do agree however that the way a culture conceives proper behavior on the part of males and females is an incontrovertible part of the way femininity and masculinity are formed, displayed, and practiced. I consider myself a rad fem for the most part, but I am neither a lesbian nor a separatist and some, but by no means all, radical feminist lesbians do consider femininity and masculinity as wholly influenced by culture, if I understand them properly. Dr. Soh also fell down the rabbit hole on pornography and only later, when Joe told her that her ideas about pornography were not those held by many others and he explained why, did she back down a bit and did manage to admit that it was not appropriate for children. Prostitution understood as work and not as an oppressive system that supports patriarchy probably would be accepted by her, but it wasn't mentioned. As a Liberal, by her own admittance and someone who said she has a problem with many things about feminism, she said everything goes (or words to that effect) as long as it is between two (or possibly more?) consenting adults. She completely accepts homosexuality, which is fine, and is completely against the transitioning of children, which is good, but she believes that adults should be able to transition if they wish. She alluded to homosexuality being biological, whereas no genes have been found to be associated with homosexuality or with transgenderism although birth order and twin studies have shown there to be a correlation to some extent with homosexuality. The study she mentioned about the correlation of scans of gay male brains with that of females is not one that is widely accepted, at least in my reading of the issues. So much about these issues are not yet understood. Certainly the level of hormones in the pregnant woman's body has an effect on the development of the foetus, which she mentioned, but it is not shown to be definitive in the development of homosexuality or transgenderism. She and Joe both believe that some people are naturally transgender. I do not fully accept that, as I believe culture and parental and peer and other societal influences are extremely strong and act on the individual's understanding of themselves. On the other hand, I am not averse to changing my mind of that. In transvestism for instance I believe something goes wrong with males within the family and in society that make them extremely susceptible to these kinds of fetishes. She did not discuss the environmental and psychological conditions that exist in the family that produce the idea of gender dysphoria, for instance, sexual, physical, or psychological abuse many girls and boys have in their histories as well as a propensity toward body mutilation because of the departure from gender norms and the influence of ADD or autism in the development of dysphoria. She also said in connection with pornography that it wasn't an addiction and Joe also pushed back at that in some amazement at her lack of understanding of the highly addictive nature of pornography (which can be just as harmful as addictions to gambling and to alcohol and other drugs). She seems to be totally unaware of the true nature of most of the porn that is out there and the development of trans porn, another issue that wasn't discussed, but she tried to backtrack a bit but it wasn't convincing. This is basic stuff and she was out to lunch on it. Except with her brief mention of the word feminism, she did not discuss the issues within the context of the gender-critical feminists critique of it. She did discuss briefly autogynephilia and paraphilias generally (which I gathered was the subject of her graduate dissertation) in relation to MtoF transitions of I believe heterosexual transvestites, who are overwhelming heterosexual, but did not discuss the prevalence of most transitions being that of transvestites rather than feminine-identified gay males. The condition of autogynephilias and other paraphilias was apparently new information for Joe. She failed to mention, however, the history of the development of the transgender ideology, its funders, their aims, pedophilia, drag queens at libraries and schools, and the detailed history and nature of transgenderism that one finds in reading Janice G. Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, Heather Brunskell-Evans and others. She failed to mention any of the thousands upon thousands of verbal attacks, the many job losses or demotions; deplatforming aimed at feminists who criticize transgender ideology; disruption of meeting sites or cancellation of conference venues; nor of the few actual physical attacks by trans activists on women, their spaces, etc. She never mentioned women's and girls' sports, or even the importance of maintaining separate facilities for vulnerable women, except she did mention prisons but did not mention the well-documented information about crimes committed by sex offending female-identified transgender persons in prisons against women. In fact, she totally ignored all the data that is being noted by feminist critics of this issue. I got the impression she keeps herself away from feminist criticism. That's too bad, because without that criticism one misses a great deal, if not most of the analyses out there. Both she and Joe of course spoke of the ideology as a form of religion and some of the reasons why activists and their allies and people working in academia and other societal institutions support this movement but not in depth. Altogether, I thought it was a major disappointment. Sorry.
I've just recently been wondering how Raquel Rosario Sánchez has been getting on - I hope that she's still studying in the UK, for example.
I was also thinking that it'd be great to hear from women like her and Anne Ruzylo, who've been terribly failed by the very institutions which should be protecting and assisting them. Of course, the media was interested in the scandals in which they were embroiled, but to hear from them afterwards would be potentially revelatory, I feel. Just an idea!