I’ve liked you Sarah since I saw you on Andrew Doyle’s show ages ago. You were clear, concise, cogent. You were sat opposite some obese AGP lawyer. He seemed quite reasonable but his whole affect clued me in to the reality: you, a woman, were wearing a smart shirt and jeans, I believe. He, a trans identified male, was dressed as “a woman”: fuckme knee-high, high-heeled leather boots, a mini skirt, tights, etc. Everybody in the front row must have had an eyeful. It is a fetish, they get off on making everyone a part of it, and I’ll never call anyone by anything except their birth sex pronouns ever again! But, I respect your position.
While I agree with you that people can wear what they like, I also think that what you wear or profess that you feel has nothing to do with your sex. I’m not keen on compelled speech (as in pronouns to suit other people’s prejudices about clothing choices) but while “be kind” annoys me I can live with it until women actively suffer.
But what I would say here is that neither do I blame women who have been afraid to speak, bullied into silence, a moment of anger and belligerence when they finally get to say what they have always believed. Yes, women are very angry, and they have every reason to be. The trans “folx” are reaping what they have sown. It isn’t the best result for harmony but it is understandable. Maybe the LGBT bullies might say sorry and things will calm down. Why do women always have to be the peacemakers no matter what they have suffered?
Thank you very much Sarah for sharing your thoughts on this, as I think a lot of people will feel identified with you. At least, that's exactly how I feel! I used to be very respectful of trans-identifying people before the hard ideological push by the TRAs, so I became a bit more intolerant towards them as a result. However, I think the key is to have more respect for others in general. Nobody should compel anyone to say anything they don't agree with. And we should all try to be respectful to one another, and have arguments when we think that damage is being done (as it's the case with ignoring biology or science in general, medicalising kids, etc.) and challenge rules and authorities when they are not following facts/science, etc., but all from a place of respect. I think part of the problem is the echo chambers we all tend to end up in, thanks to social media. I left twitter over a year ago, and I'm so much happier as a result. I used to be full of anger as I kept seeing reports about things the TRAs had done, or had pushed for. Now I see that things are more mixed; we do need to remain aware of what's going on in order to push back in certain areas, but it's important to see that not everything is that terrible and that indeed progress is being made (at least in the UK! In the US, Spain and other countries it's a different story...but I have faith!). Thanks again!
Excellent post and I love the way you handle the entitled boneheads who entered the chat. You are a model of restraint, sensible thinking, directness, and clarity of response.
I find your comments incredibly arrogant and putting your right to say what you like above all other considerations, no matter how it impacts on the vulnerable. Deb Ramsey picked that up, but you dismissed it out of hand because you seem to think other people's needs are not important. I was barely aware of your existence before today, but I now have found this confession of yours to be most enlightening.
I could take you more seriously were you not prepared to straw man your arguments so thoroughly, wrapping together reasoned disagreement with name calling and insults. Mature people on social media ignore the vitriolic and consider the informed arguments against their stance. What this internecine rift reveals mostly is the class warfare at play. Those who believe they are owed deference by reason of their elite status tut-tutting the masses, those who have built a consensus around pronouns and their use and who stand in the streets with signs and show up to face the violence, seems to be far more egregious as violation than being called a few names. As for the free speech argument, reread your opening blurb and try hard to see the irony you obviously did not when you wrote it.
If freedom of speech is the hill you are willing to die on, then you should have a comment on Sam Melia, a man who was sentenced to two years in jail for producing stickers discussing racial replacement in the UK.
Should there be freedom of speech for people like him?
If you think you calling mentally ill men "she" is acceptable (even though no TERFs are getting anyone fired or put in jail--there is no "both sides" here) then there should be a comment on this.
I have no idea who’s right in this debate, or even whether there can be a right or wrong – which I suppose might be one of the points you were trying to make in your post. But I really do admire your honesty. Though I have no idea whether that is a result of courage or hubris – or whatever might lie in between. Either way, having only recently discovered Substack, I am not used to seeing such honest, thoughtful debate about such a complex and dangerous subject
I am a straight white male (and I have to say I do not like the word “straight,” having come out of the 60’s where it seems to have meant “not with it” in terms of the whole sex and drugs and rock and roll thing). In any case, as a SWM I do not feel I am allowed to have a legitimate say in any of this – at least not in polite circles, as they say. And that may be why I wrote a piece a few months back which I called “An Open Letter to Elliot Page” – the trans actor who came out a couple of years ago, but whom I had just encountered for the first time in a TV interview.
But I never published that letter, because in the end I was just too uncomfortable expressing my views on such a fraught and sensitive subject – which I suppose, at the same time, was my reason for wanting to write it. I realized I was uncomfortable and that my thoughts on the subject were not terribly sophisticated – which as a man, mainly centered around the idea of welcoming him to the club.
My thoughts came out of my immediate reaction to him, which was that this guy was really cool and courageous for what he’d done. He talked about some of the hatred and disparagement he’d encountered, including a recent episode in which some guy dumped a beer on him and called him a faggot – which I described as “really REALLY dumb.” But one of the reasons for my hesitancy in publishing the letter was that I really didn’t know whether it WAS dumb. Was “faggot” a generally accepted slur against trans men? I had no idea.
I guess the other reason for not publishing, was that I write about politics. That is what my novel is about, and that is what I came to Substack to write about. And I didn’t want what I was saying to be seen as political. But to be honest, mostly it was just a lack of courage. Which is why I feel the need to say how much I admire your courage in writing your article, as well as what you and the others have said here in the comments.
It is the most important hill, a hard-fought-for and precious hill that we all benefit from living on. We need to guard it with strong walls and a deep moat, with open-minds and strong principles. Maybe one day every hill will look like our one?
Hi Sarah, I agree with you but would add a nuance: laws, including ECHR, are based on a particular group of human beings' changeable views at that time and at that place, informed by their worldviews, which are also subject to change. Objective realities however are not subject to change by laws - such as the fact that only adult human females also known as women can get pregnant and give birth for example. We need to put the focus much more on directly observable objective facts rather than what a particular article of ECHR says or the way it is interpreted. Your underlying position that the main problem are the people who simply cannot understand that they do not have a veto over what others think or say is well-made.
This whole thing makes me really sad. I suppose I still operate on the principle that unless you're actually being directly attacked or lied about, there's no need to retaliate. If you cant say something nice, just dont say anything. We all want the abomination of gender ideology gone, and respected each other's different ways of working. These divisions also mean that we seem to be required to pick a side. I like and respect Sarah, as well as Kellie-Jay, both ways of fighting are useful and valued.
I’ve liked you Sarah since I saw you on Andrew Doyle’s show ages ago. You were clear, concise, cogent. You were sat opposite some obese AGP lawyer. He seemed quite reasonable but his whole affect clued me in to the reality: you, a woman, were wearing a smart shirt and jeans, I believe. He, a trans identified male, was dressed as “a woman”: fuckme knee-high, high-heeled leather boots, a mini skirt, tights, etc. Everybody in the front row must have had an eyeful. It is a fetish, they get off on making everyone a part of it, and I’ll never call anyone by anything except their birth sex pronouns ever again! But, I respect your position.
While I agree with you that people can wear what they like, I also think that what you wear or profess that you feel has nothing to do with your sex. I’m not keen on compelled speech (as in pronouns to suit other people’s prejudices about clothing choices) but while “be kind” annoys me I can live with it until women actively suffer.
But what I would say here is that neither do I blame women who have been afraid to speak, bullied into silence, a moment of anger and belligerence when they finally get to say what they have always believed. Yes, women are very angry, and they have every reason to be. The trans “folx” are reaping what they have sown. It isn’t the best result for harmony but it is understandable. Maybe the LGBT bullies might say sorry and things will calm down. Why do women always have to be the peacemakers no matter what they have suffered?
Thank you very much Sarah for sharing your thoughts on this, as I think a lot of people will feel identified with you. At least, that's exactly how I feel! I used to be very respectful of trans-identifying people before the hard ideological push by the TRAs, so I became a bit more intolerant towards them as a result. However, I think the key is to have more respect for others in general. Nobody should compel anyone to say anything they don't agree with. And we should all try to be respectful to one another, and have arguments when we think that damage is being done (as it's the case with ignoring biology or science in general, medicalising kids, etc.) and challenge rules and authorities when they are not following facts/science, etc., but all from a place of respect. I think part of the problem is the echo chambers we all tend to end up in, thanks to social media. I left twitter over a year ago, and I'm so much happier as a result. I used to be full of anger as I kept seeing reports about things the TRAs had done, or had pushed for. Now I see that things are more mixed; we do need to remain aware of what's going on in order to push back in certain areas, but it's important to see that not everything is that terrible and that indeed progress is being made (at least in the UK! In the US, Spain and other countries it's a different story...but I have faith!). Thanks again!
Excellent post and I love the way you handle the entitled boneheads who entered the chat. You are a model of restraint, sensible thinking, directness, and clarity of response.
Sarah,
I find your comments incredibly arrogant and putting your right to say what you like above all other considerations, no matter how it impacts on the vulnerable. Deb Ramsey picked that up, but you dismissed it out of hand because you seem to think other people's needs are not important. I was barely aware of your existence before today, but I now have found this confession of yours to be most enlightening.
I think freedom of speech is important, but also I have concerns about it.
It reflects the dominant ideology:patriarchy.
Freedom of speech is what has permitted the huge increase in pornography. See Sheila Jeffries https://youtu.be/r4PuDDaq4hY?si=BQY0pIJEJdp9T6dC
PS, I am able to discuss ideas without being rude.
I could take you more seriously were you not prepared to straw man your arguments so thoroughly, wrapping together reasoned disagreement with name calling and insults. Mature people on social media ignore the vitriolic and consider the informed arguments against their stance. What this internecine rift reveals mostly is the class warfare at play. Those who believe they are owed deference by reason of their elite status tut-tutting the masses, those who have built a consensus around pronouns and their use and who stand in the streets with signs and show up to face the violence, seems to be far more egregious as violation than being called a few names. As for the free speech argument, reread your opening blurb and try hard to see the irony you obviously did not when you wrote it.
If freedom of speech is the hill you are willing to die on, then you should have a comment on Sam Melia, a man who was sentenced to two years in jail for producing stickers discussing racial replacement in the UK.
Should there be freedom of speech for people like him?
If you think you calling mentally ill men "she" is acceptable (even though no TERFs are getting anyone fired or put in jail--there is no "both sides" here) then there should be a comment on this.
What do you think?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/04/the-tyrannical-jailing-of-sam-melia/
I have no idea who’s right in this debate, or even whether there can be a right or wrong – which I suppose might be one of the points you were trying to make in your post. But I really do admire your honesty. Though I have no idea whether that is a result of courage or hubris – or whatever might lie in between. Either way, having only recently discovered Substack, I am not used to seeing such honest, thoughtful debate about such a complex and dangerous subject
I am a straight white male (and I have to say I do not like the word “straight,” having come out of the 60’s where it seems to have meant “not with it” in terms of the whole sex and drugs and rock and roll thing). In any case, as a SWM I do not feel I am allowed to have a legitimate say in any of this – at least not in polite circles, as they say. And that may be why I wrote a piece a few months back which I called “An Open Letter to Elliot Page” – the trans actor who came out a couple of years ago, but whom I had just encountered for the first time in a TV interview.
But I never published that letter, because in the end I was just too uncomfortable expressing my views on such a fraught and sensitive subject – which I suppose, at the same time, was my reason for wanting to write it. I realized I was uncomfortable and that my thoughts on the subject were not terribly sophisticated – which as a man, mainly centered around the idea of welcoming him to the club.
My thoughts came out of my immediate reaction to him, which was that this guy was really cool and courageous for what he’d done. He talked about some of the hatred and disparagement he’d encountered, including a recent episode in which some guy dumped a beer on him and called him a faggot – which I described as “really REALLY dumb.” But one of the reasons for my hesitancy in publishing the letter was that I really didn’t know whether it WAS dumb. Was “faggot” a generally accepted slur against trans men? I had no idea.
I guess the other reason for not publishing, was that I write about politics. That is what my novel is about, and that is what I came to Substack to write about. And I didn’t want what I was saying to be seen as political. But to be honest, mostly it was just a lack of courage. Which is why I feel the need to say how much I admire your courage in writing your article, as well as what you and the others have said here in the comments.
It is the most important hill, a hard-fought-for and precious hill that we all benefit from living on. We need to guard it with strong walls and a deep moat, with open-minds and strong principles. Maybe one day every hill will look like our one?
Well said.
Hi Sarah, I agree with you but would add a nuance: laws, including ECHR, are based on a particular group of human beings' changeable views at that time and at that place, informed by their worldviews, which are also subject to change. Objective realities however are not subject to change by laws - such as the fact that only adult human females also known as women can get pregnant and give birth for example. We need to put the focus much more on directly observable objective facts rather than what a particular article of ECHR says or the way it is interpreted. Your underlying position that the main problem are the people who simply cannot understand that they do not have a veto over what others think or say is well-made.
This whole thing makes me really sad. I suppose I still operate on the principle that unless you're actually being directly attacked or lied about, there's no need to retaliate. If you cant say something nice, just dont say anything. We all want the abomination of gender ideology gone, and respected each other's different ways of working. These divisions also mean that we seem to be required to pick a side. I like and respect Sarah, as well as Kellie-Jay, both ways of fighting are useful and valued.
Well said Sarah.x