Does anyone believe this debate will go ahead ?

Which bring me to why I think a debate of this kind is largely pointless. To work it would require an agreement at the start of the debate of definitions of the key terms: sex, gender, gender identity, trans, transsexual, gender reassignment surgery, intersex etc, and a commitment that the arguments presented would be consistent with those definitions.

If each side is using different definitions for the same terms, the argument will end up bogged down in mutual incomprehension.

Totally agree that mutual agreement on various key terms beforehand would be very useful, so I'd be surprised if Lavery agreed to that.
What I expect Lavery to do in the event this actually happens, is to try to make what are actually simple and obvious things seem complex and incomprehensible.

It's the only route a genderist can take once they've left the path of No Debate, isn't it?
I think whoever debates a genderist should keep trying to keep it simple and straightforward rather than get sucked into all the mud and murk the genderist will be trying to stir up, so that any reasonable listener can easily discern who is being sensible and who is trying to throw sand in everyone's ears....

Which bring me to why I think a debate of this kind is largely pointless. To work it would require an agreement at the start of the debate of definitions of the key terms: sex, gender, gender identity, trans, transsexual, gender reassignment surgery, intersex etc, and a commitment that the arguments presented would be consistent with those definitions.

If each side is using different definitions for the same terms, the argument will end up bogged down in mutual incomprehension.

"Sex is so complex that hardly anyone understands what it really is" is similar to "Gravity is so complex that hardly anyone understands what it really is". Some of the greatest scientific minds have been trying to develop a complete understanding of gravity and they deeper they go the more complex it becomes. It's possible that a complete understanding of gravity will never be reached.

So how is it that every human being on Earth manages to operate within a gravitational well? To do so mostly without even thinking? Even babies? It's because the deep fundamental nature of gravity is irrelevant to people at large dealing with it. This is how sex works in society. Unless playing some identity game, people are attracted to those of the relevant sex(es) and for those who want a family everyone knows you need the cooperation of one person of each of the two sexes.

Sooner or later, positions that people won’t defend just crumble away.

Evidence of some on-going inter-TRA squabbling about some of the more ridiculous safety claims:

twitter.com/AlteredSquid/status/1457716586312241166

Absolute piffle.

No trans person would be in the slightest danger from a gathering of GC women, unless perhaps they were gluten intolerant, because a lot of our get togethers are very cake oriented.

I really can’t abide cowardice and dishonesty combined like this. Nobody here, or in any other GC space wants trans people eradicated. As always though, it’s no skin off my nose if GL’s supporters want to make themselves look silly, they can have at it

Sooner or later, positions that people won’t defend just crumble away.

so be prepared for safety concerns being one of the reasons it fails

Without a doubt.

Is there some back pedalling going on?

Off topic, but just to say not all Jewish men say this, just a small number of very religious ones.

Yes Judaism has its sexist bits, but not all Jews follow it.

For the record, the equivalent female prayer says, 'Thank you for making me the way I am'.

Classic and standard male priveledge - let the woman organise everything.

An example of one of my recent twitter exchanges -

Them - 'K stock said being trans was a fiction - So let me ask you how acceptable would it be if K.Stock told the world that Gay is a 'Fiction'? Riots? Immediately sacked? Attacked by news media? Ostracized from all Unis ?'

My reply (over several tweets)' Someone claiming homosexuality was a fiction would not get a lot of support, but as homosexuality manifests itself by people being attracted to and setting up lives with people of the same sex and this is a common place and highly visible occurrence, it would also be a very difficult position to prove.
The rights of anyone to love or be attracted to someone of the same sex do not in any way impact on the rights of people to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex so the only objection would be one of moral outrage.

That is an unacceptable position both politically and personally these days.'

And their response to my reply -' Ah so you won't answer the question u just squirm n wriggle away from it bcos 2 answer it would see your entire GC worldview smash into pieces.'

These rather weak techniques of suppressing a proper debate will butter no parsnips with Helen. Or the moderator. Or the audience. So they will have to resort to letting their arguments fall and stand on their own merits.

If only I was a betting woman....

Grace Lavery. What a massive, massive knob. That is all.

Well, absolutely, Boogaloo.

And I have, as many here, had interesting online discussions with people on this subject and as soon as you point out things such as our excellent points, above, they start saying that you are in bed with right wing fundamentalists, you have been indoctrinated by TERF bigots so you are blind to the science, you are trying to kill trans people, you are denying them rights, you are stupid, you are a pervert....

Yes, great on twitter my friend. Not sure Helen Joyce will be taken down so easily in a live debate.....

When people say that sex was not historically defined in terms of chromosomes and was therefore fluid... how do they think cats or cows or goldfish manage to procreate? Are they just running around shagging anything, waiting to evolve into consciousness so they can comprehend genetics and finally, FINALLY manage to figure out what male and female are?

My goodness, I think Helen Joyce will be fantastic because she knows her data and how to interpret it.

But also, this bewilders me 'sex is a modern cobceot' bull - the human race is very good at making babies, and knowing which humans grow babies.

Royal families have always been very good at knowing which of their royal babies to marry to other royal babies to make more royal babies.

Peasents in the field have always known which people need to grow and suckle babies.

How do these history and biology deniers actually explain that.

So what is it that makes Grace Laverty a woman. If I don't have whatever it is, am I not a woman any more? Does that mean there will be a meaning of the word 'wonan' that actually excludes women who don't share this characteristic with grace? Therefore, you need to be really explicit what it is when talking about laws and protections. So I would start there....

RoyalCorgi
I think the next time one of our dear friends starts with their nonsense I’ll just reply “MONORAIL MONORAIL MONORAIL!”

It was the martinis that did it for me...

Is it too late to organise a 'Datun for MN' campaign and get her to do it?

Well, it's all useful sunlight, yep. Maybe Lavery could go on Lorraine for some serious debate.

Also, things like having the right tone of voice, a decent way of articulating what you want to say, keeping calm, etc, all can give the impression of credibility, or not.

But if anyone is going to debate someone who isn't just a complete numpty, then presumably they will be well prepared.

For me it would have to be twofold. Knowing the bogus facts that get presented, and being able to refute them.

And knowing that no, you're not a service human, and you have every right to privacy, irrespective of the argument.

But, as I said, at the end of the day, it's all sunlight. And that's the only thing one needs.

You can argue till the cows come home, on an academic level, using sources, about how people didn't acknowledge biological sex in the past, so mixed sex prisons please, but people will still think you're an entitled, self serving wanker.