How can we work towards a constructive debate about all things transgender?

In the other thread we're talking about the TRA that attacked Maria at Speakers Corner. That will be the test case to see if the public is willing to accept the core TRA belief that they have a right to use physical violence against women who won't obey them.

Feminists could make a lot of headway, I think, if we went on the offensive by Telling Everyone Real Facts

Think you might have just invented a t-shirt slogan there Donkey! I’d buy one. Perhaps to wear to places like WoW festival and other women’s events as a peaceful protest and spark for reasonable debate. Although perhaps I’d fear a (physically) violent reaction - but I guess that’s how changes are made, by direct action and people putting themselves at risk for what they are fighting for.

I can't remember who it was that noted that postmodernism began its takeover of academia right around the time that a few women and people of color were starting to gain a foothold in the academy. That's not a coincidence, I don't think. The system is old and has weathered attempts to overthrow it before. It's good at adapting.

This may be worth a read for people unfamiliar with how some of this stuff works.

pfox.org/Shame-Rage.pdf

The understanding that TWAW is a faith-based statement has been a bit of a watershed moment for me in understanding ‘the debate’. It centres around the state of womanhood being separate from a person’s biology; ie - it requires a belief in the existence of souls - by definition a spiritual belief. As an atheist I don’t feel the need to ‘debate’ the existence of God+/-ess(es) with those who believe he/she/they exist. We disagree. I wish them to be able to live their lives practicing their beliefs - and me mine - side by side peacefully.

When this comes to the current problem of of trans activists demanding access to women’s spaces for anyone ‘self-identifying’ however - I struggle to see a way forward. A Woman’s Place has it framed well, I think.

I feel that radical feminist movements respect transgender movements’ beliefs as far as they are able to whilst still protecting their own beliefs. Is it even possible for a trans activist to do so, given what their beliefs are? (Word ‘beliefs’ starting to look strange now!).

I feel that radical feminist theory is rooted in science, which does not rely on belief, but the scientific method (what we call ‘facts’) - so is the crux of the debate not TWAW, but should spiritual beliefs and science be given equal weight in political/social policy? Are science and religion equally considered belief systems?

I’m rambling now, but this is wider than transactivism vs feminism, it is the post-truth, ‘alternative facts’ dystopian landscape we (the ‘first world’) seem to have found ourselves in the past few years. Which serves the dominant classes - white, male, heterosexual, rich/‘elite’ - at the expense of pretty much everyone else. Perhaps that is why the transgender movement has flourished in this landscape, as autogynephiles basically tick all those boxes, and they’ve just hijacked it. Whilst we live in a political climate that allows a reality tv personality to become the democratically elected ‘leader of the free world’ with basically all his policies based on hate of anyone ‘other’ - I really don’t see how we can reconcile this.

I think the answer might be everyone can’t be happy.

They're men. We all know that they're men. Even the people pandering to them the most know that they're men.

What's troubling me on this forum is that there's a pattern where a TIM comes along, maybe is polite at first, but then eventually they show their true colors and turn abusive, and every time all it takes is the tiniest bit of backing off and change in tone (often to a saccharine sweetness that I'm not sure why anyone falls for) for the women who had been pushing back against their earlier behavior to turn conciliatory. I know it's socialization, but we need to stop doing that. They're using our socialization against us.

If the people who feel guilty about not doing that, who feel obligated to always give second chances, would do some reading on narcissistic personality disorder a lot of things about the pattern that keeps playing out might become a lot clearer to them.

(Before anyone jumps on me, I don't mean Miranda or Curry, who engage with us properly as fellow human beings. It's not hard to spot a narcissist, if you pay attention. I wish people would start paying attention.)

Absolutely knock--down brilliant post, Materialist.

I wish it were a blog post so more people could read it. Seriously, I would make it the gender-critical manifesto if I could.

If we accept the TRA terms of debate, we've already submitted to the authority of the TRAs. We've already conceded everything.

This is so crucial for feminists to understand, if we are to have any hope of winning this fight. We must not allow trans activists to continue dictating the terms of this debate. We must go on the front foot, and start defining our own terms, both linguistically (refuse to use trans Newspeak) and rhetorically (don't let TRAs continue to frame this as being about the 'rights' of a 'vulnerable minority', don't concede things that aren't true for the sake of compromise, and don't waste our time and energy getting defensive and trying to prove that we aren't 'bigots').

I've said this before: we should be challenging them to defend their supremely illogical ideology, which is totalitarian at base, which is resulting in to real harm to women and children, and which is going to wreak serious damage on the whole of society if it isn't stopped. 'Gender identity' doctrine doesn't make any sense, it's just a mess of sexism, homophobia, wild contradictions and thought-terminating cult mantras. Feminists could make a lot of headway, I think, if we went on the offensive by Telling Everyone Real Facts about how incoherent and harmful trans ideology is - all of it, not just 'self ID'.

This is a head-to-head clash of men vs. women over just which sex class has authority over the very being of women. It is the absolute essence of the patriarchal struggle.

That's it in the starkest terms. And that's why terms like 'trans woman', 'transgender woman' and 'transwomen' are so damaging, and why feminists will continue to lose if we use them - because they fundamentally disguise what the essence of this struggle is about.

That's a very interesting post @materialist.

I really think that making it clear how unreasonable TRAs are is the key to getting through this mess. Having different people/groups working at that from different angles would help. Watching IW on CBB really was eye opening as to how startled and put off people are when they encounter the movement's raging narcissism in an unavoidable way. So let's make it harder for the public to avoid noticing.

TruthIsNotHate

Good for you for trying to think of a way round this.

With activists, it only ever comes down to whether or not transwomen are women.

There are loads of transwomen who disagree with the idea of self ID and are quite open about being biologically male.

And, happily, I have recently seen an uptick in their presence on social media.

There are very many feminist groups at the moment all striving to create dialogue and be listened to.

One of the most considered is a A Woman's Place UK.

They have a list of five demands, which centre around women and their rights. They don't mention transwomen at all.

Fair Play for Women have put them on their website.

It's worth browsing both FairPlay and a woman's place. They are organised, effective and smart.

fairplayforwomen.com/womans-place-uk

Jess Phillips retweeted the five demands. Saying she thought they sounded reasonable.

Now of course, she is on the terf hit list and has suffered a huge amount of abuse.

Nonetheless the demands are reasonable and rational. Worth looking at and digesting. And sending to your MP.

As long as the statement “I do not believe that trans women/men are literally the sex they have transistioned to” is regarded as hate speech/violence and conflated with wanting to deny trans people rights and services, then no meaningful debate is possible. So that has to stop.

I truly do want to find workable solutions but I’m not going to be told that first I have to agree that something is true which I don’t believe to be true.

Because of this way I have approached them, trying as best as I can to be relatively neutral while insisting that the same consideration is given to the ‘non-believers’ as is given to those who are trans, I think it is going to be very hard for them to dismiss my concerns without thinking deeply about them. And thinking deeply about these things is very good.

Angry- yes.

You're framing yourself as the reasonable adult, which makes you seem like a person who the organization can work with.

Yes they would Angry.

It’s not perfect and there are undoubtedly ways to counter it but all I can say so far is that this argument is proving successful and if this continues could have a big impact on this debate.

Think of India Willoughby on CBB. The insistence on turning every conversation back to the "am I a real woman or not?" topic nearly succeeded in peak transing the whole nation overnight. It's obstructive, narcissistic, thoroughly offputting behavior. So if they want to try it, let them, it'll just make them look foolish.

Yes I agree vesuvia but it is in a much less confrontational way.

Well, yeah, but if the TRAs then keep going back to "but the important thing here is that we're women!" they look childish and uncooperative, as they're derailing what could otherwise be a productive discussion.

I think this argument would also be good to put to politician eg Jess Phillips. It doesn’t force them to pick a side. I’m not on twitter or I would try.