'Nuanced' discussion: dangerous?

'nuance' is the new 'shut up women'. See around a lot at the moment. Makes me laugh now

As is 'complexity'....

Yes, I know what you meant, but not all trans people are male. I wouldn't want my hypothetical breast-bound, short-haired, enbie daughter using one of these third spaces

She could use the ladies, though, because she is female.....?

Nuanced is often another word for smug or patronising. Starmer wasn't at all nuanced. His starting point was TWAW.

OP, I wouldn't waste my energy on trying to change her mind, personally. You've said your piece to her and she's not on board yet. It doesn't mean she won't be in the future, but I don't think there's one killer argument that's suddenly going to change everyone's minds immediately, especially if they've bought into the cognitive dissonance. The drip drip drip of news articles on different topics affected by the issue will have its effect over time for many.

You also have to bear in mind that as a lawyer she could lose her job for saying the wrong thing on the issue and if she's practising, the chances are that her firm or chambers has been touched by stonewall on trans issues (the more prominent the firm, the higher the chances).

Even if you could change her mind, it would likely be hugely risky for her to admit that publicly (you say her online identity is known IRL) anyway.

Your barrister friend is using her status to hide her cool girl misogyny.
If needs be , post factual accounts of incidences where trans “rights” have endangered women , and pose to her - respectfully - where’s there’s ever been law/legislation capable of being exploited by men , that men her not exploited.
Ask her if it’s remotely possible that a law allowing anyone to identify into anyone’s space , would be manna from heaven for anyone with the intent to do so ?
Ask her - thereafter - what is her numerical threshold of acceptable incidences whereby that might happen , before such is deemed inimical to the safeties and rights of women and girls?
Is it a few such incidences , or one?

Ask her for a straight answer and point out that[as a barrister] that’s something she insists on , and ask her to leave out the logical fallacies and tropes that - despite being a favourite gambit when bamboozling someone in the dock - will not cut any mustard , especially as hominem insinuations of hysteria and “not being nice”.

And ask her , as a barrister , where being nice ever got her ?

She has taken the position that until the radical feminist position is able to be more flexible and nuanced, so as to be able to find some accommodation for some transgender people she cannot support it.

I reread your OP and found myself wondering what you hoped to achieve. Were you hoping to convert her?

My experience of this debate is that you are never going to convince anyone whose mind is already set.

The reality here is that women’s rights are already compromised. What you are arguing about is now how much further women’s rights should be compromised in order to help men with a mental health disorder.

There is no right and wrong. There is only ‘how kind should women be to help distressed men?’

Does she insist you use her language?

'nuance' is the new 'shut up women'. See around a lot at the moment. Makes me laugh now.

Remember, laws are social constructs, biology isn't.

“Transwomen are women” isn’t nuanced.

Barracker has it.

Fact is, we currently have a ‘nuanced situation’ where women have already (without discussion) been pushed into accepting some men into our spaces.

Our situation is already a compromise and now we’re being told we’re unreasonable for refusing to budge over again.

'respect for difference and ways to accommodate those differences'.

There's her hypocrisy.

If she wishes to be honest about respecting difference, she would respect that women are different from men, biologically, irrevocably. And she would argue that to respect women is to respect the factual truth about how we differ from men - all men, including the ones who imagine we share a magical personality type with them.
And the accomodating differences would be something akin to accepting that even men who hold some very offensive, sexist and dubious views about what women are, are worthy of their own protection under the law, but that it must in no way compromise the rights and definition of actual women.

She's a hypocrite.
She says 'acknowledge difference' but she means 'disregard difference' when it pertains to half of humanity differentiating themselves fairly and factually from men.

Sex is the difference between all males and all females.
Not personality, not identity, not empty labels devoid of meaning.
She needs to respect that real, meaningful difference, and accomodate that.

She hasn't disclosed whether she has trans friends or family but I do wonder.
Maybe this is a factor. I've noticed that when some people have young friends/family who are going through this, they feel it's terribly disloyal to say anything that might hurt their feelings. It's almost too painful to look at the logical arguments.

Third spaces are superfluous, completely unnecessary, and serve to place women and girls who use them at risk

When I say 'third spaces' I refer to a specific provision for trans people. they would exist alongside single sex spaces.

However, more to the point is that to suggest this entirely reasonable and considerate provision as a solution - to everyone's comfort, dignity and safety, would also reveal the full extent of the validation agenda.

As Barracker points out, nuance isn't relevant when protecting women's and girls rights. What's wrong with holding a line? With having clear boundaries? Decent safeguarding

Yes, this is not about negotiation, but about firm and clear rules and boundaries. Many still don't seem to understand the profundity of the issue, and see it as a side issue or minor dispute.

You're talking to a barrister who is a skilled debater. A really good one could argue that night is day. But, if her arguments are so good, why hasn't she convinced you

Absolutely, some of the highest paid, and most skilled, make a living out of defending the un-defendable - and to great acclaim.

thatdamnwoman

So, are you mostly talking about how to deal with the legal issues around such individuals, or access to spaces more specifically?

With a lawyer, what I might be interested in talking about is how to differentiate between contexts where sex is the relevant category, and ones where it is gender. I'd e asking her to defend the conflation of the two which generally leads to sex being simply ignored - and in any case I think it's pretty clear that in most instances where the law talks about women, what they mean is female people.

Third spaces are superfluous, completely unnecessary, and serve to place women and girls who use them at risk.

Why would they use them, unless they had some particular reason not to use the spaces set aside for women? FWIW I don't think they are really necessary, but in some cases they may be useful for a variety of people who need more privacy.

But that's not nuanced, apparently

A barrister who dismisses a robust defence of freedom of speech when it is suffering a sustained, aggressive existential threat by lobbyists as 'not nuanced'? I would advise an Orwell refresher course. She should start with 1984, paying particular attention to Newspeak and Doublethink.