Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Friendship ends over my sticking to GC principles

60 replies

RealityFan · 25/06/2023 09:26

First thing to say is I have mixed feelings, but no regrets. Secondly, I am somewhat a "dog with a bone", somewhat culpable, but I also have my pride.

This is a fellow in my hobby, Californian, an online only friendship we'd cultivated over a few years. He's somewhat more intellectual and articulate than me, way better read (retired English Literature professor). And maybe most critically, a self-labelled liberal progessive (although only a small "d" Democrat voter), generally dismissive of all things conservative (let alone Republican, Trump etc).

A lot of our politics meshed, I've moved away from strong emotional connections to Brexit, populism, anti-migration. As usual with almost everyone liberal/progessive I talk to, I'm the one who's moved more centrist on so many issues, yet they strangely have been settled, and there's an underlay of almost snobbish derision ("it took you HOW long to realise Bxt, populism etc are poison?").

The only policy areas that I haven't mellowed on, after massive research and introspection, have been cancel culture/trans politics.

And so as our online chats developed we moved past dry discourse on our hobby, to free wheeling politics and culture wars shibboleths.

And here the fault lines developed. Whether a liberal v conservative or progessive v stable or US v UK disconnect, our heated discussions overboiled.

Strategically, all my fault. I returned again and again despite seeing not much common ground. Even when we did find an isolated patch of grass to share, our definitions around the issue were never agreed, so that seeming unanimity was nothing of the sort.

Culmination of the argument was his insistence on data...show me that damaged kids are not trans and being misled into medicalisation etc.

When I quoted the Tavistock GIDS expose book findings that vast majorities of referrals getting transition services were autistic/ADHD and other co-morbidities/likely gay/self-harming/over half from families with major issues incl abuse, and I gave him the deteriorating narrative from the Dutch Protocol over four decades, and that one European nation after another are putting transition services to teens on hold, he then switched the argument to say I couldnt extrapolate this to all teens, or all those seeking help globally, especially in US.

Well, I kinda lost it at that point. Now a fellow whom I looked up to as a proud rigorous intellectual (he certainly got me being more de-cluttered in certain analytical processes) is shown to be as guilty of closed loop thinking, unable to make the leap to at least starting to doubt his more fixed views. What data beyond Dutch Protocol and Tavistock does anyone need?

Other areas are more subjective (my arguments on the silencing of the female sex class and transing the gay away) and harder for me to nail with a progessive, but on this Tavistock story and data, I expected better from him. Way better than simply the shoulder shrug and demand for me to show him more evidence.

To then after strongly defending myself and for the first time aggressively labelling him as an ostrich (or do I mean lemming?), I get the return compliment of conspiracy theorist, pints swilling pub bore etc.

Final messages of "farewell my sweet" and "is it goodbye or au revoir?"

Now, I've only given a potted history, and he would write a wholly different version to what I have, but the basics are basically right.

How do I feel? Not bothered at all, actually. I'm my own worst enemy for unecessarily dragging an irreconcilable subject out, I provoked the final showdown.

And I've learnt that even certain common ground doesn't mitigate for a drastic chasm in temperament on one of the biggest conundrums of the age.

Yes, I'm sad. But I've learnt that on trans, you're vilified for being emotional/kneejerk, for not getting with the zeitgeist, and then even when you do what you're asked for and show data to back up your escalating misgivings, it's still not enough.

I've spent a year in therapy to help me reconcile and manage reactions to the trans labyrinth. An episode like this 12 months ago would have left me hurt and angry.

Today I'm sanguine and philosophical, proof I'm a more rounded person now, and that I won't sell my principles down the river.

Interested in the collective wisdom of MN on this.

OP posts:
drhf · 25/06/2023 10:05

You’ve made him think.

As you’ve said, you didn’t want to agree to disagree (“I returned again and again despite seeing not much common ground”) - you wanted a real discussion and a real argument. But the risk to him of that is very high. A California liberal retired professor can’t just become gender critical with no consequences. If he agrees with you, he risks losing all his real life friends.

My guess is that his intellectual curiosity will eventually stiffen his spine. He will reflect on the arguments you both presented and will eventually conclude that his were worse. He will read up on the issues, educating himself to argue his case better, and will realise to his shock that you were telling the truth.

He will start to talk to his friends about what he has learned, expecting them to be interested. Instead, most will shut him down, and if he persists, they will reject him as he rejected you. He will protest that he is an ally, and has been misunderstood, but slowly he will come to understand that he is a gender heretic and has been excommunicated from the kingdom of the gender saved.

Gradually he will realise that intellectual freedom was worth the price. One day he may even end up here telling us about his mountain climbing journey. And whether he tells you so or not, it will be because of you.

PriOn1 · 25/06/2023 10:00

Sounds like he is asking you for impossible proofs.

”Culmination of the argument was his insistence on data...show me that damaged kids are not trans and being misled into medicalisation etc.”

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It should be enough to cast doubt on the processes and demonstrate the possibility of/potential for harm and I have no doubt you did that.

In these arguments, I often reached a point where the discussion became difficult because the situation has already been allowed to progress, unchecked, into dangerous territory. It ultimately comes back to the fact that the other side is advocating experimental treatment and changes to policy that should have only ever been made with full oversight and a strong evidence base. They were not, but that (false) progress puts us on the back foot every time.

He doesn’t sound like much of a loss, which is good. Much more painful if it’s family members and close friends.

viques · 25/06/2023 09:57

Poor man, he has terminal Californian Mansplaining Syndrome, incurable, the patient ends up with their head so far up their arse they are talking to their appendix.

TheGreatATuin · 25/06/2023 09:54

He sounds patronising as all fuck. I'm always astounded by the sheer number of men who feel they have the right to 'educate' women on what a woman is.

Craftycorvid · 25/06/2023 09:48

Well, in plain english, he sounds an absolute arse. Switching tactics in the face of evidence is not intellectual debate, it’s a cheap political technique ‘well….we are not here to talk about….’ Er, yes, we are!

ThisIsUncool · 25/06/2023 09:44

So he was happy to 'educate' you, but not interested in learning from you.

Redshoeblueshoe · 25/06/2023 09:43

Farewell my sweet - yuck

Igmum · 25/06/2023 09:38

Sounds like you gave him the evidence but he didn't want to hear it because it went against his preconceived narrative. Not surprising really. Being an academic doesn't exempt you from emotional blind spots (though it may convince you that you don't have them).

You offered evidence in one direction. He should challenge it with evidence in the other direction. You're not his unpaid research assistant.

Sorry the friendship might have ended, are you to blame? Possibly, but so is he for having a tin ear.

ThePM · 25/06/2023 09:36

Underneath it all, he’s just a common or garden misogynist. Didn’t like a woman saying No to him.

he knows you can’t change sex. But he won’t back down when it’s a woman he considers his inferior as his interlocutor.

HorribleNecktie · 25/06/2023 09:35

He sounds like a patronising dick and thus nothing of value has been lost.