This piece is not about me. Yes, Andrew Doyle has mentioned me in his February 8 article, https://unherd.com/2024/02/caught-up-in-the-gender-critical-civil-war/, and I asked UnHerd the right of reply, which was not granted, hence this piece. But this is not about me. It is about the right of women to hold on to material reality without being accused of being ideological extremists who want to compel everyone’s speech. So let’s start from what happened. Everything started from this tweet of mine
I am sure Andrew Doyle must regret his reaction. He has always done a brilliant job defending GC women against the extremism of transactivists. Your argument must have got lost in the pile-on of abuse hurled at him, and seemed to come from the same direction, when in fact your legal argument was unimpeacheable. I had never heard this argument, though I follow all matters GC vs Trans. I think Doyle had probably never heard it either. Indeed, as you say, the selective willingness to refer to transwomen as "she" (whenever they are your friends, or seem reasonable people like Debbie Hayton) can expose GC women to accusations of malicious misgendering whenever they refuse to do so. If some people can use pronouns that do not correspond to sex, why can't everyone? - so the argument might go. And this indeed would be a very bad consequence of this kind of selective politeness. When I read Andrew Doyle's piece in Unherd the other day, I liked his analogy to bowing one's head in prayer out of respect to your hosts at dinner, while not being a believer. But your clear legal argument is much stronger. Thank you, Alessandra, you are my Queen too (to echo someone's comment to your piece about Italy).
Like you, I think Andrew must regret his initial reaction, at least the parts he's deleted. Unlike you this is the first I've heard of Alessandra and I'd like to think I'm approaching this from a disinterested position. Her legal argument may be logically sound, but far from unimpeachable. The argument that a personal choice in how we refer to someone may be coopted by the evil TRAs for legal fights around 'misgendering' strikes me as implausible (or unsustainable if it does happen). Not that there won't be legal fights and that TRAs won't be using any underhand trick in their book to advance their 'interests', as they already are. But that we must stick to such an absolutist position, with no room for nuance or personal choice, does strike me as extremist. Alessandra knows this is the case and tries to disarm it by deriding and ridiculing anyone accusing her - accurately in my opinion - as simplistic, purist, an ideologue, or an ultra as ignorant (citing their lack of knowledge of the US constitutional doctrine around the subject). The fact she knows that doesn't make it less valid though, or less true.
Your comment misses the mark. Courts in England have insisted that rapists be given the honorific “her”—there’s actually a notorious Ricky Gervais joke about this insane fact. Laws and institutional norms work together to enforce behavior. Major institutions, including academia, the media, and the courts, have been demanding pronoun conformity for quite awhile. The American Press guidelines instruct journalists to use opposite sex pronouns for trans identified males. The NYT referred to Harvey Marceline, a serial killer of women, as “she.” Murderers and rapists of women are now housed in women’s prisons, and the state that imprisons them calls them “she,” and expects the women prisoners to do so also. The “personal choice” ship sailed long ago. You write like it’s still 2003.
What's the logical chain from private choice about how to address someone to the public enforcement of compelled speech (legal, organisational, or other)? I acknowledge and share your repulsion regarding the institutional denial of reality in all the cases you've brought up but how does it follow we should now advocate its mirror image, trying to enforce - through reputational hounding or any future legal means you might desire - compelled speech favoured by another group?
That said my comment was about something else entirely and I don't want to defend (or apologise for) something I never said or meant, in any language, whether of 2024, 2003 or 1990, whatever its implied impact on the truth value of my response.
asking a person not t lie is not compelling speech. The US constitutional doctrine of compelled speech is a completely irrelevant and quite out of place.
To clarify the logical chain: Two of the examples I cited involve branches of state power -- the court and the prison. When courts demand that male rapists be addressed with female pronouns, their demand is not merely about politeness or personal choice. The courts have the power to punish and imprison. The use of opposite sex pronouns by courts makes a mockery of the idea that pronouns are simply a "private choice." The actual rape victim has been denied her individual conscience, her choice, by state power. Whether we're talking about California (see: Dana Rivers), Scotland (see: Isla Bryson), or elsewhere, state power increasingly enforces fealty to opposite sex pronouns. Even more egregiously, state-run prisons force incarcerated females to live with violent males because the pronoun "she" instantiates the fiction that a violent male could possibly be a "she," which absurd on it face. This is a matter of purposefully deceitful language used at the highest levels of power. Pronouns do the work of distorting reality, and it is on the basis of this pronoun sleight-of-hand that women in prison are harmed by both trans identified males and the state's power to enforce gender ideology.
That's the logical chain. As Max Weber explained, the state has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The examples I have given demonstrate the state forcing gender lies onto women. The harm this causes goes well beyond a Twitter/X bullying pile-on -- which is harmful, to be sure, but the nature and the magnitude of harm caused by harsh words on social media does not compare to the state forcing capitulation to gender ideology.
There is literally nothing you said I would disagree with, but we are still debating (and I'm grateful for your taking the time to rebut my arguments). So I've been wondering where's the disconnect. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it may be that we have a different understanding of 'public' and 'private'. You wrote 'the use of opposite sex pronouns by courts makes a mockery of the idea that pronouns are simply a 'private choice'' and I fully agree, but I don't see it as an example of 'private' choice, but institutionally mandated irrationality. And the dire consequence you listed are real.
I'm not fully consistent in my thinking because my moral intuition says there should be exceptions when it comes to forms of address, even in institutional settings, when the sex of the individual has no bearing on women's rights, is a matter of common courtesy and tacit acknowledgement of their mental health struggles. I'm on shaky leggs here but putting it out so that it's clear where I stand.
For me Andrew's choice to address Debbie as 'she' was a personal choice divorced from the broader fight in favour of reason, truth and rationality, a fight he's contributed to enormously, often - like Alessandra - at significant personal cost. That's probably why he singled her out in his UnHerd article, others' attacks register but ultimately do not matter, hers must have really stung. It's like Laverne Cox turning on Owen Jones. And it's regrettable, now that I know more of Alessandra and her contributions, the courage she's shown, and the mistreatment she's experienced, the whole malarkey makes me sad.
Yes, I see your point. I hadn't thought of it that way. There should be room for personal choice. I just thought that the selective politeness/ personal choice strategy would give ammunition to devious lawyers. I think it might. After all it is lawyers and judges who have come up with ridiculous nonsense such as "the belief in the real immutable nature of sex is not worthy of respect in a democratic society" or "a GRC changes a person's legal sex for all purposes, including for the the purposes of the Equality Act", and so on. But I think (and hope) you are right, thank you for this comment.
I share you concern. I hope I am right, too, but we live in crazy times and the madness Andrew once lampooned for hyberbolic comic effect as his Titania McGrath persona has, to my horror and morbid amusement, actually been prophetic!
Indeed Titania has been prophetic. I could not have more admiration and gratitude for Andrew than I already do. All his books are fantastic, and so is his Free Speech Nation. I can see Alessandra's point, though (though I had never heard this view), and I think people on the same side should clear up this misunderstanding and not fight each other. Perhaps they both overreacted and will reconcile. Andrew could invite Alessandra to GB News?
I hope that both of them reconcile also. I hold the line however as there's too much at stake to not do so.
As a middle aged woman I've had lots "trannie" mates & acquaintances over the years & like many of us Ultras these days there is a sadness in having to now deny them as a "she".
This is a case of gross legal & governmental irresponsibility. Enshrining concepts into law that we don't know enough about.
Geneticists & neuroscientists are currently working on various undertakings that will clarify whether for eg we can determine a "true" trans, a "harmless" trans, or just an outright liar & psychopath, which will be the time that laws should be changed, even if it takes decades for empirical evidence. TRA Groups have plenty of money & this is where it should go- investing in the science.
Old fashioned trannies from my day were usually gay men who wore woman-face in drag shows at supper clubs in red light districts. The AGPs were more like the Kenny Everett character MRAofM (Mr Angry of Mayfair)- a hidden secret. Most people's peccadilloes were private & should continue to be.
The Yogyakarta Principles were created by well-meaning yet naive activists, some not so naive plus highly motivated activists, and also some puppets too presumably. The principles were merely ideas that are quickly becoming law because of the YP guidebook, The Denton Documents, which teaches activists how to get the YP into law.
We can trace much of the YP to persons with paraphilias. AGP, BDSM, paedophilia groups such as NAMBLA potentially , etc.
I understand that the male sex drive is very strong & that having a fetish on top of it makes it obsessive. This is why I hold the line.
The logical chain is clear. Powerful institutions have made it a sign of right mindedness to declare “your pronouns” and expect you to abide by others’ declarations. Email signatures contain not only listed pronouns, but links to articles asserting that “Pronouns are important.” This is common in academia. Yet in academia, it is verboten to link to an article asserting “pronouns are bad.” Anyone who tries to will suffer heavy career and personal cost—as can be seen in the hounding of Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. Your argument is a weak version of “both sides!” Can you name a single major institution where trans activists have been hounded out of their livelihoods and harassed for offering pronouns?
I've tried my best and I've been accused of 'both-side-ism' before, so that may be a character flaw. I'll stick to my belief we are talking at cross purposes and arguing different things.
I have been ostracised by some of my social circle for my gender critical beliefs and branded a bigot by others. Others still claim my beliefs, though not hateful in themselves, lead to discrimination and hatred towards trans people. I've always considered it a hyperbole, that is until the Andrew Doyle affair. I must admit it has given me pause.
You argue eloquently about what you describe as 'the right of women to hold on to material reality without being accused of being ideological extremists who want to compel everyone's speech'. That's quite a mouthful. One can recognise material reality while not an extremist bent on compelled speech, but one can as easily be a material realist while ideologically extreme AND a censorious illiberal. Based on this post, the only one of yours I've ever read, you'd fall into the latter camp.
Unpacking your post would require an article of equal length, and you make - in my opinion - a number of valid points. But my whole experience, which is obviously limited, says most gender criticals want an acknowledgement of material reality and some kind of accommodation with that as the starting point. Once common sense prevails and it becomes a truth universally acknowledged that trans women are men the rest should be a tacit or explicit social contract.
You use your legal expertise to rightly point to potential pitfalls. But then you fall into an absolutist rabbit hole concluding that hence any individual choice in pronoun use is pandering to some evil leading to inevitable tragedy. A mirror image of TRAs saying misgendering leads to their feeling unsafe, and what follows is misery and, inevitably, suicide.
As you admitted everything started from your tweet saying you don't trust Andrew because he lies in order to pander to a fetishist's feelings and his kinks. You went defensive about it saying it was to be expected from a woman exasperated by his ignorance that this constituted a 'safeguarding risk'. I don't think it was 'to be expected'. I think it was plain nasty. You intimated Andrew's reasons for his words (ugly ones in your opinion) and used it to malign his character (he's not trustworthy because he lies to indulge a pervert, he knowingly does it to harm women and children) and implied his degeneracy may have no bounds (what else are you ready to do...).
The decent thing to do would be to apologise to Andrew. But you won't, as you said this would be admitting there is room for people to make their own choices, ones that are not depraved and nefarious, for how they address other people. And this for me is extremism with ideological blinkers on. You may be ideologically pure, but you do the movement harm and set it back, yours will be the views the TRAs use to show the intolerance, prejudice and disrimination implicit in gender-critical feminism.
I am sure Andrew Doyle must regret his reaction. He has always done a brilliant job defending GC women against the extremism of transactivists. Your argument must have got lost in the pile-on of abuse hurled at him, and seemed to come from the same direction, when in fact your legal argument was unimpeacheable. I had never heard this argument, though I follow all matters GC vs Trans. I think Doyle had probably never heard it either. Indeed, as you say, the selective willingness to refer to transwomen as "she" (whenever they are your friends, or seem reasonable people like Debbie Hayton) can expose GC women to accusations of malicious misgendering whenever they refuse to do so. If some people can use pronouns that do not correspond to sex, why can't everyone? - so the argument might go. And this indeed would be a very bad consequence of this kind of selective politeness. When I read Andrew Doyle's piece in Unherd the other day, I liked his analogy to bowing one's head in prayer out of respect to your hosts at dinner, while not being a believer. But your clear legal argument is much stronger. Thank you, Alessandra, you are my Queen too (to echo someone's comment to your piece about Italy).
Like you, I think Andrew must regret his initial reaction, at least the parts he's deleted. Unlike you this is the first I've heard of Alessandra and I'd like to think I'm approaching this from a disinterested position. Her legal argument may be logically sound, but far from unimpeachable. The argument that a personal choice in how we refer to someone may be coopted by the evil TRAs for legal fights around 'misgendering' strikes me as implausible (or unsustainable if it does happen). Not that there won't be legal fights and that TRAs won't be using any underhand trick in their book to advance their 'interests', as they already are. But that we must stick to such an absolutist position, with no room for nuance or personal choice, does strike me as extremist. Alessandra knows this is the case and tries to disarm it by deriding and ridiculing anyone accusing her - accurately in my opinion - as simplistic, purist, an ideologue, or an ultra as ignorant (citing their lack of knowledge of the US constitutional doctrine around the subject). The fact she knows that doesn't make it less valid though, or less true.
It is not extremist to simply use the correct pronouns. What is extremist is to insist one has to lie about someone's sex.
Your comment misses the mark. Courts in England have insisted that rapists be given the honorific “her”—there’s actually a notorious Ricky Gervais joke about this insane fact. Laws and institutional norms work together to enforce behavior. Major institutions, including academia, the media, and the courts, have been demanding pronoun conformity for quite awhile. The American Press guidelines instruct journalists to use opposite sex pronouns for trans identified males. The NYT referred to Harvey Marceline, a serial killer of women, as “she.” Murderers and rapists of women are now housed in women’s prisons, and the state that imprisons them calls them “she,” and expects the women prisoners to do so also. The “personal choice” ship sailed long ago. You write like it’s still 2003.
What's the logical chain from private choice about how to address someone to the public enforcement of compelled speech (legal, organisational, or other)? I acknowledge and share your repulsion regarding the institutional denial of reality in all the cases you've brought up but how does it follow we should now advocate its mirror image, trying to enforce - through reputational hounding or any future legal means you might desire - compelled speech favoured by another group?
That said my comment was about something else entirely and I don't want to defend (or apologise for) something I never said or meant, in any language, whether of 2024, 2003 or 1990, whatever its implied impact on the truth value of my response.
asking a person not t lie is not compelling speech. The US constitutional doctrine of compelled speech is a completely irrelevant and quite out of place.
To clarify the logical chain: Two of the examples I cited involve branches of state power -- the court and the prison. When courts demand that male rapists be addressed with female pronouns, their demand is not merely about politeness or personal choice. The courts have the power to punish and imprison. The use of opposite sex pronouns by courts makes a mockery of the idea that pronouns are simply a "private choice." The actual rape victim has been denied her individual conscience, her choice, by state power. Whether we're talking about California (see: Dana Rivers), Scotland (see: Isla Bryson), or elsewhere, state power increasingly enforces fealty to opposite sex pronouns. Even more egregiously, state-run prisons force incarcerated females to live with violent males because the pronoun "she" instantiates the fiction that a violent male could possibly be a "she," which absurd on it face. This is a matter of purposefully deceitful language used at the highest levels of power. Pronouns do the work of distorting reality, and it is on the basis of this pronoun sleight-of-hand that women in prison are harmed by both trans identified males and the state's power to enforce gender ideology.
That's the logical chain. As Max Weber explained, the state has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The examples I have given demonstrate the state forcing gender lies onto women. The harm this causes goes well beyond a Twitter/X bullying pile-on -- which is harmful, to be sure, but the nature and the magnitude of harm caused by harsh words on social media does not compare to the state forcing capitulation to gender ideology.
There is literally nothing you said I would disagree with, but we are still debating (and I'm grateful for your taking the time to rebut my arguments). So I've been wondering where's the disconnect. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it may be that we have a different understanding of 'public' and 'private'. You wrote 'the use of opposite sex pronouns by courts makes a mockery of the idea that pronouns are simply a 'private choice'' and I fully agree, but I don't see it as an example of 'private' choice, but institutionally mandated irrationality. And the dire consequence you listed are real.
I'm not fully consistent in my thinking because my moral intuition says there should be exceptions when it comes to forms of address, even in institutional settings, when the sex of the individual has no bearing on women's rights, is a matter of common courtesy and tacit acknowledgement of their mental health struggles. I'm on shaky leggs here but putting it out so that it's clear where I stand.
For me Andrew's choice to address Debbie as 'she' was a personal choice divorced from the broader fight in favour of reason, truth and rationality, a fight he's contributed to enormously, often - like Alessandra - at significant personal cost. That's probably why he singled her out in his UnHerd article, others' attacks register but ultimately do not matter, hers must have really stung. It's like Laverne Cox turning on Owen Jones. And it's regrettable, now that I know more of Alessandra and her contributions, the courage she's shown, and the mistreatment she's experienced, the whole malarkey makes me sad.
Yes, I see your point. I hadn't thought of it that way. There should be room for personal choice. I just thought that the selective politeness/ personal choice strategy would give ammunition to devious lawyers. I think it might. After all it is lawyers and judges who have come up with ridiculous nonsense such as "the belief in the real immutable nature of sex is not worthy of respect in a democratic society" or "a GRC changes a person's legal sex for all purposes, including for the the purposes of the Equality Act", and so on. But I think (and hope) you are right, thank you for this comment.
I share you concern. I hope I am right, too, but we live in crazy times and the madness Andrew once lampooned for hyberbolic comic effect as his Titania McGrath persona has, to my horror and morbid amusement, actually been prophetic!
Indeed Titania has been prophetic. I could not have more admiration and gratitude for Andrew than I already do. All his books are fantastic, and so is his Free Speech Nation. I can see Alessandra's point, though (though I had never heard this view), and I think people on the same side should clear up this misunderstanding and not fight each other. Perhaps they both overreacted and will reconcile. Andrew could invite Alessandra to GB News?
Nothing would make me happier. And a great idea, pitty Andrew won't read this, he should defo invite Alessandra to his show.
I hope that both of them reconcile also. I hold the line however as there's too much at stake to not do so.
As a middle aged woman I've had lots "trannie" mates & acquaintances over the years & like many of us Ultras these days there is a sadness in having to now deny them as a "she".
This is a case of gross legal & governmental irresponsibility. Enshrining concepts into law that we don't know enough about.
Geneticists & neuroscientists are currently working on various undertakings that will clarify whether for eg we can determine a "true" trans, a "harmless" trans, or just an outright liar & psychopath, which will be the time that laws should be changed, even if it takes decades for empirical evidence. TRA Groups have plenty of money & this is where it should go- investing in the science.
Old fashioned trannies from my day were usually gay men who wore woman-face in drag shows at supper clubs in red light districts. The AGPs were more like the Kenny Everett character MRAofM (Mr Angry of Mayfair)- a hidden secret. Most people's peccadilloes were private & should continue to be.
The Yogyakarta Principles were created by well-meaning yet naive activists, some not so naive plus highly motivated activists, and also some puppets too presumably. The principles were merely ideas that are quickly becoming law because of the YP guidebook, The Denton Documents, which teaches activists how to get the YP into law.
We can trace much of the YP to persons with paraphilias. AGP, BDSM, paedophilia groups such as NAMBLA potentially , etc.
I understand that the male sex drive is very strong & that having a fetish on top of it makes it obsessive. This is why I hold the line.
Yes but why on earth are you referring to men as a type of woman when you make the case otherwise so well, against using females’ words for men?!
The logical chain is clear. Powerful institutions have made it a sign of right mindedness to declare “your pronouns” and expect you to abide by others’ declarations. Email signatures contain not only listed pronouns, but links to articles asserting that “Pronouns are important.” This is common in academia. Yet in academia, it is verboten to link to an article asserting “pronouns are bad.” Anyone who tries to will suffer heavy career and personal cost—as can be seen in the hounding of Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. Your argument is a weak version of “both sides!” Can you name a single major institution where trans activists have been hounded out of their livelihoods and harassed for offering pronouns?
I've tried my best and I've been accused of 'both-side-ism' before, so that may be a character flaw. I'll stick to my belief we are talking at cross purposes and arguing different things.
I have been ostracised by some of my social circle for my gender critical beliefs and branded a bigot by others. Others still claim my beliefs, though not hateful in themselves, lead to discrimination and hatred towards trans people. I've always considered it a hyperbole, that is until the Andrew Doyle affair. I must admit it has given me pause.
You argue eloquently about what you describe as 'the right of women to hold on to material reality without being accused of being ideological extremists who want to compel everyone's speech'. That's quite a mouthful. One can recognise material reality while not an extremist bent on compelled speech, but one can as easily be a material realist while ideologically extreme AND a censorious illiberal. Based on this post, the only one of yours I've ever read, you'd fall into the latter camp.
Unpacking your post would require an article of equal length, and you make - in my opinion - a number of valid points. But my whole experience, which is obviously limited, says most gender criticals want an acknowledgement of material reality and some kind of accommodation with that as the starting point. Once common sense prevails and it becomes a truth universally acknowledged that trans women are men the rest should be a tacit or explicit social contract.
You use your legal expertise to rightly point to potential pitfalls. But then you fall into an absolutist rabbit hole concluding that hence any individual choice in pronoun use is pandering to some evil leading to inevitable tragedy. A mirror image of TRAs saying misgendering leads to their feeling unsafe, and what follows is misery and, inevitably, suicide.
As you admitted everything started from your tweet saying you don't trust Andrew because he lies in order to pander to a fetishist's feelings and his kinks. You went defensive about it saying it was to be expected from a woman exasperated by his ignorance that this constituted a 'safeguarding risk'. I don't think it was 'to be expected'. I think it was plain nasty. You intimated Andrew's reasons for his words (ugly ones in your opinion) and used it to malign his character (he's not trustworthy because he lies to indulge a pervert, he knowingly does it to harm women and children) and implied his degeneracy may have no bounds (what else are you ready to do...).
The decent thing to do would be to apologise to Andrew. But you won't, as you said this would be admitting there is room for people to make their own choices, ones that are not depraved and nefarious, for how they address other people. And this for me is extremism with ideological blinkers on. You may be ideologically pure, but you do the movement harm and set it back, yours will be the views the TRAs use to show the intolerance, prejudice and disrimination implicit in gender-critical feminism.