Prospect Magazine: Kathleen Stock v Robin Moira White

Robin's answers seemed much more personal while Kathleen's were apparently factual.

Yes I thought that. I guess the difficulties arise when personal feelings collide with facts.

Ah sorry cross post

I saw Robin tweet: 'Oh, and I haven't yet seen a copy of the full article (we didnt see what each other had written - so even less of a debate, one might think). If someone could scan me a copy to read, I would be pleased.'

But I haven't seen Robin deny knowing that Kathleen Stock (or indeed anyone) was being asked the same questions.

I can understand Robin being reticent about it. I still think it's a positive step.

I was entirely aware of the format and that Kathleen Stock and have not disengaged from it - no idea where that comment comes from.

But to describe it as a 'debate' means that someone has a different idea of what a debate is from me.

RMW was asked to respond to a series of questions that were put with someone else's answers. RMW didn't know that this was going to happen hence withdrawing from the 'debate'

Oh, really? That's interesting. I thought it was a really helpful and interesting way of looking at the issue - two views from different angles. They are very clearly from different angles, given the difference in tone and content, too. I thought that was interesting - Robin's answers seemed much more personal while Kathleen's were apparently factual.

That is interesting.

Robin:

When you say women need protection from that disadvantage, can you clarify what you mean?

Is it that you think transwomen need protection from that disadvantage?

Or is it that you think women need protection from that disadvantage?

If it's the second one, can you propose how you would see that happening?

If it's the first one, then you probably don't need to answer, as I suspect the answer is already quite apparent.

Yeah but I love a good flounce

This is hilarious

Almost like a response diaspora, with the responses being somewhere they shouldn't be (ie next to some very sensible responses). RMW thought that they were the only person being asked these questions.

Someone who responds 'whatever' to questions, maybe won't get the info that everyone else is getting? Leading to not knowing what the article would be like, and putting things in your book that are obsolete before the ink's dry.

Almost like a response diaspora, with the responses being somewhere they shouldn't be (ie next to some very sensible responses).

TR'A' list

I think being seen as debating with anyone not on the TR'A' list is the issue.

One would like so Eresh.

I would be interested to know what changes Robin would have made to their answers if they knew that Dr Stock was also answering the same questions.

Because if the answers given already needed changing? Why? Or were the answers given tailored to a certain audience?

That's interesting Shedmistress. Although I'm surprised that Robin would be bothered about someone else also responding to the questions and then the answers being compared. Personally if I was convinced that my personal response was accurate and fair, then it wouldn't bother me in the slightest that it was compared to what someone else might say.

Have these questions caused you to reflect and reconsider some aspects of your beliefs Robin?

Almost like a response diaspora, with the responses being somewhere they shouldn't be (ie next to some very sensible responses). RMW thought that they were the only person being asked these questions.

Well that is what I take from the Twitter comments by RMW anyway.

And apologies for using 'lady' rather than 'woman'. Menopause lady brain

What about the drop in IQ points and being forever reliant on drugs? Would that be recommended as a basis from which to seek education and training for a professional career?

Ah I see @Masdintle - the exception that proves the rule. It is a good point and the reaction to is shows the advantage men have.

Hello Robin I appreciate you’re here and answering questions. May I ask one? You say:

“It would all have been so much easier had I been able to avoid male puberty.”

If you had avoided male puberty the treatment would have rendered you infertile. I don’t know if you have children or not, but if you do, how do you reconcile that statement and your past ability to father children?

Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. The lady in the cafe has such a powerful voice that people comment on it. It's mentioned in the reviews. It's a feature of the cafe. If it were a man shouting the orders nobody would even notice. Yes, she's an outlier, yet her volume and power are pretty normal for a man. That's the point, really

@WeeBisom - I think what is going on with essentialism is that they are using it, as with other words they employ, in the same way we might talk about race essentialism.

Race and biological essentialism are both real things, but they don't map on to each other perfectly given that race is a construct to a much more significant degree than is the case with sexual reproductive categories. So with race essentialism we don't only say, biological racism is bad, we can say that race as we understand it isn't even a concept that exists in the same way in every culture or is even present in all. There are serious thinkers who do and have made the argument that the way we destroy racial bigotry is by losing the concept of race altogether and that so long as it exists we will have racism. In fact that the who purpose of the concept of race is to enable racism.

I think that's where they are trying to go with the way they are using "biological essentialism."

Of course there are outliers with some women having much more powerful voices and some men having much less powerful voices. The point is really about the norms not the outliers. Some black people have powerful jobs and earn way more than some white people - that doesn't mean society is not racist.

Has anyone been to The Regency Cafe in Westminster? The lady behind the counter has a seriously powerful voice!