And People Like Her Are Why So Few Trans Women Are Ever Allowed to Become “Established” Scholars

The publisher Routledge is following standard Gay, Inc. operating procedure: Everything about trans existence not only can be questioned but must be questioned, and trans people have no standing to even suggest that legitimizing an anti-trans work is the moral and scientific equivalent of legitimizing any given anti-gay tract by any given talking-head du jour from NOM or Focus on the Family.

On 5 July, we received a reply from Jeremy North, Managing Director of Books at Taylor & Francis. He assured us of Francis & Taylor’s high academic standards and rigorous vetting process and wrote:

At the top of our criteria in assessing suitability for publication is content that meets the highest standards of academic scholarship. Sheila Jeffreys is an established, albeit sometimes controversial, scholar. Her proposal was subjected to multiple peer review and we are confident on the basis of the scholarly feedback and the author’s track record that is should be published.

The reply in question was to a letter by Dallas Denny and Jamison Green questioning the decision by Routledge (an imprint of Taylor & Francis) that the world needed yet another book legitimizing trans-exterminationism – this time by transphobes Sheila Jeffreys and Lorene Gottschalk.

Anyone who believes that any of the ‘peers’ on that ‘peer review’ did contain any trans people and did not contain one or more TERFs needs – or perhaps has already had – a lobotomy.

When North’s employer is willing to similarly legitimize works questioning the existence of homosexuality and/or opposing feminism, I’ll stop looking upon his response as a fetid turd-filled lie that easily could have been a slightly-reworked draft of the stock responses to a certain ‘peer reviewed’ work by a certain ‘ established, albeit sometimes controversial, scholar’ a decade ago.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. Purely in the interested of clarity – shouldn’t she be referred to consistently as “renowned dick Sheila Jeffreys”? Just to eliminate any possible confusion.

    It might make a nice hashtag.

  2. What Jeffreys wants is not a debate, but a free platform from which to damn trans women without any form of contradiction. In order to debate, you must have voices both for and against the topic. Arguments must then be evaluated on their merits, not on “Majority Rules.” We rightly excoriate people who claim that we should “debate” whether being gay is a valid sexual orientation or sinful sexual filth. Why should we give a pass to people who claim that we should “debate” whether trans women are actually women or deluded perverts?

    Given her aggressively nasty history, debating trans people with Sheila Jeffreys would be like debating gay people with Fred Phelps. Losing the debate would not persuade her she was wrong. The idea that a “debate” is being suppressed assumes that voices against transgender people are not the vast majority of the public discourse, which is an idea that a casual survey of the comments on any internet article about trans people can dispel.

    Claiming that any kind of response to your vituperative hyperbole other than a rousing chorus of “AMEN” represents “censorship” means that you are surrendering the pretense of debate and wish only to harangue.

    • Claiming that any kind of response to your vituperative hyperbole other than a rousing chorus of “AMEN” represents “censorship” means that you are surrendering the pretense of debate and wish only to harangue.

      What you describe is the Alice Dreger definition of “censorship.”

      Sadly, her claims of having been censored by mean, nasty more-powerful-than-the-Trilateral-Commission Cabal O’ Trans Women netted her a Guggenheim Award.

  3. If you substitute a word and can’t tell if it’s Michael Savage Ph.D or NARTH – ask yourself why.

    Criticism of the practice of lesbianism is being censored as a result of a campaign of vilification by lesbian activists of anyone who does not accept the new orthodoxy on this issue… For several years there has been a concerted campaign via the internet and on the ground, to ensure that I, and any other persons who have criticised lesbianism, from any academic discipline, are not given opportunities to speak in public… Whatever the topic of my presentation, and whether in Australia, the UK or the US, lesbian activists bombard the organising group and the venue with emails accusing me of lesbianhate, lesbiphobia, hate speech, and seek to have me banned. On blogs, Facebook and Twitter they accuse me of wanting to “eliminate” lesbians.

    • Since someone asked – the original:

      “Criticism of the practice of transgenderism is being censored as a result of a campaign of vilification by transgender activists of anyone who does not accept the new orthodoxy on this issue… For several years there has been a concerted campaign via the internet and on the ground, to ensure that I, and any other persons who have criticised transgenderism, from any academic discipline, are not given opportunities to speak in public… Whatever the topic of my presentation, and whether in Australia, the UK or the US, transgender activists bombard the organising group and the venue with emails accusing me of transhate, transphobia, hate speech, and seek to have me banned. On blogs, Facebook and Twitter they accuse me of wanting to “eliminate” transgendered persons”

      –Sheila Jeffreys, 2012

      Jenga!

  4. It is puzzling – here’s a person who pontificates on what almost all transsexual people are – who doesn’t work with any – doesn’t socialize with any – has no group she studied – doesn’t have any as next door neighbors – doesn’t have any in her close family – doesn’t have any among her close friends – doesn’t have any in her social group. – has no positive relations with a trans person on the planet from what I can see.

    In every way that would matter – she’s among the least qualified and least humanly capable people of speaking to us and about us. Yet – she not only spends her life speaking about people she has no real world experience of – she’s provided a platform to publish on her lack of any actual experience.

    It’s as if Margaret Mead went to New York to write about Samoans. We’re the only people for whom this is considered acceptable professional conduct.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s