Review of HP reunion in The Guardian…they just can’t help themselves

I agree Turquoise
The answer is No. Women are allowed to say no. Some people think we aren't, which is a great part of the problem.

I have read your points, and ultimately they boil down to "women should talk to TRAs and explain. And explain again. And keep explaining". That doesn't work, as I've said.

Women used to be kind. Now we've had enough. It should be sufficient for women to say "no". You are arguing, and have throughout this thread, that women shouldn't just say "no" - they should talk, explain, negotiate, educate, etc etc etc. Well no, we're done with that. Women's spaces are for women, not for men who think they are entitled to use them.

Shedmistress - My feelings about yours from here on out exactly.

TurquoiseBaubles - I'm not making my points again, I've made them enough and you seem to still be missing them and assuming things I haven't said.

What do you suggest then Blackbird? Either women give up their rights to transactivists or we don't.

So far women have listened and heard all the transactivists' arguments and said "No thank you". Transactivists are (a) not listening, (b) calling women transphobic for trying to talk and (c) riding roughshod over all women's rights as they currently stand - the right to the word "woman" for starters, and also to any and all single sex spaces.

It's not women you should be telling to listen. Women want to keep their rights. Transactivists want to remove them.

TurquoiseBaubles - Nor did I say compromise.

Shedmistress - The point of all of my posts was not to "display evidence of JKR being transphobic" but good on you for jumping on only that and not focusing on the things I actually said. Progress is right around the corner, am I right?

There is evidence that she is widely considered to be transphobic. It's just there is no actual basis in reality, ie evidence, for that dogma.

So at least in the context of JKR, we have established that there is still no evidence that backs up her being 'widely considered as transphobic'.

I realise you didn't mean "meet in the middle" but you obviously believe there is some way of compromising, and there really isn't.

But your vaccinated/anti-vaccer argument doesn't work unless you accept that the anti-vacc movement is harming all the vaccinated (I suppose you could say that, actually, looking at the big picture).

So women can't meet TRAs in the middle - that means giving up half of women's rights, presumably. So what are we meant to give up? Can we give in on, say, toilets but hang on to changing rooms? Do we have to lose prisons to hold onto women's shelters? Do we let some (who look feminine and don't win too easily) into sports?

There is no middle ground. In ye olden days, when there were few transwomen, women were kind. We tried the middle ground. Look where that got us

When someone has been brainwashed by a cult, as it might be the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, or QAnon, there is very little point in trying to talk with them about it in a reasoned way. It isn't that they won't listen, it is that it appears as if they can't. Deprogramming them is a rather specialised business, and there are people who are expert in it, but their concerned relations have very little chance without help. And anything which is not absolutely positive about their belief makes them recoil from the person who has said whatever it is, and in the case of the church member be pitying about their foolishness in not seeing the error, in the case of QAnon followers unperson and attack. (Look at the way Trump follower Alex Jones went for Trump because Trump dared to say that he thinks the covid vaccines work! He might as well have advocated eating babies.)

So with the belief-system in which it is possible for human beings to change sex -- not gender, sex. Anything which even remotely suggests this might not be a fact is totally unacceptable, anathema, and the person who has voiced it must be punished.

It's not a very pleasant cult.

And you're taking what I've said out of context.

Senua - I'm not, but you know that already so
I don't know that at all. You have spent the last day telling us we should be more understanding of the other side. That is a weird way to conduct an argument.
I think that you are intellectualising this far too much. Think about the people who have been harassed, doxxed, etc - it's not theory to them, it's an unpleasant reality.

Senua - I'm not, but you know that already so 🤷🏻‍♀️

If that's what you've taken from my posts then there's really nothing I can do.
It's the vibe I'm getting, too. Why are you so desperate to #BeKind?

Shedmistress - If that's what you've taken from my posts then there's really nothing I can do. That's not what I've said, nor what I've meant and the ones issuing death threats more than likely don't have the movements best interests at heart, so no point having any type of conversation with them.

You've spent alot of time telling us to be nice to people that are issuing us death threats, that's for sure.

Sorry, that ended up a lot longer than I expected!

TurquoiseBaubles - I don't think I said meet in the middle (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't like the flat earth analogy because it doesn't really affect anyone (other than perhaps the holder of the view) else for them to believe it.
If I'm going to use an analogy I quite like my coronavirus vaccine one because there were laws and mandates etc put in place that affected everyone.

So let's say that there is an anti-vaxxer and a scientist. The scientist knows all of the facts and enters into a discussion with an anti-vaxxer. The scientist asks the anti-vaxxer (I'll refer to that as AV from now on) why they are against the covid-19 vaccine. The AV starts explaining their reasons why but is constantly met with "that's not fact, you're wrong". The AV is frustrated because their views aren't being listened to and the scientist is frustrated because their facts arent being listened to. No progress is made as it's a constant back and forth of "this is my reason" and "that's not fact/that's a lie". Then, a different scientist comes along who also knows all of the facts and whilst still frustrated with the lies, knows that they could listen to every reason that the AV gives, whilst still holding their own factual opinion. My assumption is that the fact that the AV was actually listened to, progress is made as it was probably an interesting conversation for both parties. The AV feels listened to about their feelings/beliefs rather than just shut down and the scientist has a better understanding of the AVs reasons - from this point onward both parties feel there is a higher level of respect from either side, which makes the next conversation easier to have and easier to move toward more progress.

All of the above could be utter bullshit (and I'm happy to be told so with the reasons why) but its just how I see it in my own mind. We cant get to a solution right away and the only way to work toward a solution is with progress and the above seems a way to get some progress.

But both sides can't change if one side is reading what JKR said and quoting verbatim and the other side is misquoting, interpreting and quite simply lying.

There is no possible "meet in the middle" in that case. Back to flat earth - how on earth are scientists meant to meet in the middle with flat-earthers?

'To refute something is to demonstrate conclusively and indisputably that it is false, with sufficient cogency to stand up in a court of law.

To dispute something is to suggest that it is false, providing evidence to support this view.

To deny something is to say it is false, but give no particular reason for this assertion'

I did not know this was the definition of 'refute'! Thank you Asking!

Private Eye have a little cartoon in this week's issue.

TurquoiseBaubles - Oh of course, hugely! Your comparison isn't lost on me at all. I don't agree at all with the way JKR is being treated and that's why I think the way it's all spoken about needs to be changed, as it is unfair and it isn't getting anywhere.

TurquoiseBaubles - The next time I come across the answer (which I can't place a time on as I'm generally not overly actively searching for these conversations online) I will be sure to post it in this topic and I'm sure everyone (myself included) will find it interesting.

You may not get very far but I believe we can get further than we have done in recent times. It could take months, years, decades.. but if the current way of speaking about it isn't working then both sides (as long as they do want to find a solution) need to change the way the conversation is being had. Dont ask me how, because I have no clue! But in general if something isn't working then you try something else. Again, that's really just my own opinion on the matter that absolutely no one need share.