Germaine Geer is trans phobic, mysogynist and misandrist

Post Reply New Topic

Germine Geer is to many the poster child of second wave feminism. Her book the Female Eunuch is required reading in gender studies and feminist circles.

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8105
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/world ... .html?_r=0
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/o ... aine-greer

The news outlets, so far as they are criticising her at all, have referred to her comments as misogynist or transphobic. I agree. However I have not heard misandry being mentioned. Why? It seems obvious to me she views trans women as men, therefore she hates the idea of men encroaching on her turf. Would she call gender reassignment "gender appropriation" perhaps?

Now the Kardashians/Jenners are publicity driven that much is obvious, but it seem to me Geer is also trying to steal some limelight herself. Second wave feminism is being eclipsed by third wave feminism.

Her whole premise since the 70s is the large degree to which men hate women. However she clearly doesn't discriminate in her hatred of men.

What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. This is her exclusive club, she can do what she wants and you can't. If fact chances are you are not female enough to join, even if you were born a woman.

It makes sense for feminists especially of that age to reject MTF trans as women since they fly in the face of gender as something that is learned and constructed by society rather than something that is innate and biological which is something that is integral to their thinking. The whole relationship between feminists and transgenders is pretty interesting, it always seem that the more extreme they are the more socially ultraconservative. Feminism is such a broad term these days it means nothing on its own, when you've heard one self identified feminist speak you've heard one self identified feminist speak.

There is contradictory aspect to their philosophy. Isn't the whole point about challenging gender roles and stereotypes? They say those are created. Of course this is a sham, it isn't about that or equality. It is much more about the relationship to men than it is about fairness, at least in her case.

For the sake of argument say someone thinks gender identity disorder is a mental illness, wouldn't that be all the more reason to be compassionate, or at the very least qualify their position indeed of being combative?

People might not agree, but it is a defensible position. Scientist/Medics are not 100% agreement on everything to do with gender identity. Though personally I think if they can get through the the normal waiting period which normal involves therapy, who am I to deny them surgery?

There are individual thinkers in any movement, but there are also cliques too. Just go on the board of these news report and you are see there are some repeating the same crap, actively defending it.

These cliques are exclusive clubs, and the more radical they are the more misandrist they ted to be (or anti-anything they define as not gyno-centric)

I consider myself a feminist, but from what I have read about this woman and her beliefs (like that trans women aren't "real" women, whatever that means) she does not represent me and my idea of feminism (which is trans-inclusive and intersectional). She does not speak for me.

Someone posted on this thread and I was going to respond now I have time. Shame becuase i wanted to address their points.

When she says that men and women are a certain way, the language is ambiguous so it can seem that she's not taking exceptions into account, but I think this might be down to deficiencies in the English language. If you verbally account for exceptions every time you make statements about generalities, you become long winded and you lose the audience.

In my view, It's worth being skeptical of the reasons we are given why we need to be constantly ostracizing our public intellectuals. There are many reasons why someone might want to shut them up that aren't necessarily the stated reasons. I don't even think GG said anything that could be taken as either false or offensive to a reasonable person on the issue for which she is being attacked. Not if this interview is any indication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdxCXlENgT4

I suspect this latest barrage of attacks against Greer is less motivated by trans rights, than it's motivated by some of the anti authoritarian stances she's taken throughout her career. Greer doesn't just talk about feminism, and when she talks about anything it's often with regard to things like personal liberty, and anti democratic maneuvers carried out by the powerful. The yellow press has always tried to get her marginalized for this sort of thing. Any excuse will do. New feminism activism reminds me of the Yippies sometimes.

I've actually been wondering what was in the speech she wasn't allowed to give, and whether there's a transcript of it somewhere.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 26 Oct 2015, 7:53 pm, edited 15 times in total.

Nebogipfel I think it was you I wanted to address your original post. Sorry if is not.

The problem I had with this, is she left it a bit late in the day to give a qualified position. I would have respected her more if she had done that to start with, I defend her right to that position.

She denied the existence of transphobia, which is illogical as saying homophobia doesn't exist, when there have been recorded homophobic and transphobic attacks. I do agree with her however that is not the same as inciting violence. People who say this are clearly wrong.

She made a point that she hasn't published anything on the issue recently, but she has commented on it.

It makes no differnce if she is not PC. I'm not PC, many people are not-PC. Just becuase people who wouldn't normally agree with her on issues are suddenly finding themselves agreeing with her in this case, doesn't make her point more valid or consistent. You don't get free pass for being an academic either.

I also think she should have been able to talk simply, so she could have taken questions. Obviously it is her choice to do it or not.

Feminists movement like hers are based on social theories, theses idea are open to scrutiny like any academic ideas.

The point I took issue with the most in that interview is probably the most innocuous sounding: "I'm not about to walk on eggshells".

The movement that she has been a part of and have spawned similar third wave movements, have been all about making people walk on egg shells. Not only is this terrible advocacy, it send the message that what is good for the gander is not good for the goose.

If the assertion that she is being misandrist when she denies transphobia, is vacuous and absurd you could say the same of her idea that acceptance of transgender is misogynistic.

Her position on intersex discrimination is also hypocritical. She reminds me a bit like specialist unions, only pushing their perceived interest at the expense of other industries.

She is making a point about Jenner, but even if that were true, where is the moral high ground? Her position is all over the place. Here we have people pandering to stereotypes of women and making good money of the publicity. Is this an image of empowerment conducive to her views? Their whole careers are about stealing limelight and bathing in it. Why is it when a man steals the limelight from some women (deliberately or not), it is automatically misogynist, but when a man steals the limelight from a man, it is just stealing the limelight. So if he was playing them their own game, then he has quite a bit to go yet. Also they can do it forever, people will get bored of these shows eventually.

If someone is willing to have a sex change to steal the limelight then they are probably going to get it. I doubt someone who did not want a sex change would do that.

In the US or the UK you don't just have a sex change there is normally a transitioning period with physiological and psychiatric assessment, it is not automatic.

And in most of the U.S. still, unless you can pay for it all up front out of pocket, you won't get it at all, no matter how qualified you are. This is thanks in large part to the continued presence of blanket exclusions, which have no exceptions, in all the health plans available in large regions of the country.

Yes, the continued exclusion and banning of people who understand the world in a different way than the banners do is hugely authoritarian: "Believe our way and only our way, or be silenced/disappeared". That people are being banned from speaking, even when they aren't going to be speaking on the topic that the banners want to silence, just shows this even more. In truth, there are many, many ways to understand and interpret gender around the world, just as there are many, many ways to understand and interpret gender in the USA and UK - and only one or two of those are those held by those who seek to ban those who don't agree with them.

Both the Right and the Left have a long history of sudden authoritarian actions against those who don't embody or believe their way (see Nazi Germany, but also see the Soviet Union and Maoist China, etc).

We can learn even from people we disagree with. Some of my best teachers were people I thought were most wrong.

No one is being banned for speaking. People are only banned if they break the rules of the forum (say by attacking someone personally or saying something racist or homophobic), receive warnings from mods and ignore them, and then break the rules again. The rules aren't that restrictive at all; they just ask that everyone who participates in the forum have a basic amount of respect and human decency. It's not a lot to ask.

No, I was speaking of people being banned from speaking on college campuses, etc - not here.

I'm hearing that more and more people are being banned from speaking on college campuses in the USA and the UK (maybe other places too?) just because some people don't agree with everything the potential speaker believes in.

That's what I was addressing. All seems good here.

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about WP either.

Sorry, I think I got the subject matter confused with another thread I'm following.

Regarding WP, a site is not a jurisdiction, so as a private entity is is free to ban anyone it wants.

People forget there is no obligation to carry public content at all.

Regarding universities, bodies exist within universities so it can be quite specific and the universities themselves have to have some independence.

Your expression is guaranteed within a jurisdiction not over a person or group. No expression supersedes another's.

So even if you are blocked from a site or even a university it doesn't prevent you from speaking. Free expression isn't the same as being heard.

Having said that I still think they should have let her speak.

Universities in the UK aren't, despite what you might think, public civil services. They they are managed by UCAS, bt have a fair amount of independence but do have a a special status and are subject to standards and regulations. Funding is via the students who get loans/private means additional money come through grants.

If you get a business grant that doesn't mean you loose your independence.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 28 Oct 2015, 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Truth. What's different, though, is that previously even speakers considered controversial by some for some reason would be allowed to speak. And apparently more and more that's not being allowed to happen for certain topics - even if that topic is related to what the speaker was to speak about.

For example, someone sent me an interview done with some big environmentalist guy, who was blocked (or "de-platformed"?) from speaking about environmental issues at a university known for big environmental awareness, because an environmental group he's part of took a stance on a single topic related to their local group functioning that was popular with their members but unpopular with another group that isn't even related to environmental issues or their group. And people sympathetic to that other non-environmental group got him blocked from speaking about environmental issues because, he was told, his group had hurt the feelings of those who didn't agree with him on this other issue.

That's ridiculous. Let people talk. Even if they say stupid or outrageous things, then others will learn that and know not to listen to them. But to just cut everyone off like that? That's authoritarianism, and pushing one's own truth over the truth of others (like the above action hurt the big environmentalists, who didn't get to learn more about how to better protect the earth, or whatever it is they do).