Where to Start

I dislike the way “woke” has been cynically misappropriated to mean “leftish codswallop”, especially when they’d just discussed forced anti-intuitive linguistics from the TRAs.

By such organs as the Daily Mail. But now we rely on them for stories the Guardian doesn't touch. What a world we live in.

Oh yes, absolutely, it’s just that I understand “woke” to mean “alert to injustice”, and Doyle seems very alert to the injustice of the trans rights activists towards gay men and women.

I dislike the way “woke” has been cynically misappropriated to mean “leftish codswallop”, especially when they’d just discussed forced anti-intuitive linguistics from the TRAs.

I mean, you don't have to agree with everything he says - I certainly don't. But I think it's important to have gay male voices speaking out against gender ideology, because there is a tendency for the TRAs to claim that this is all just feminists throwing a hissy fit.

Thank you so much for these excellent interviews, I’ve spent the last 3 hours watching/listening. The Andrew Doyle one slightly marred by the sprinkling of “woke” throughout (“when did anyone woke ever produce a work of art?”).

I'm another who, if I ever say anything, sticks to personal stuff. I don't talk about JKR and I never use slogans or questions except 'what do you think' and 'what made you bring this up'. I talk about my experience at quite a high level in rowing, and how just about being selected for a squad changed my life. And about my experience in women's and mixed crews. And I talk about the ballooning number of adolescent girls and young women I know who report that they are men or nonbinary. I talk about my cousins and family friends who have transitioned. I use their preferred pronouns without question, of course.

Like most people on this thread, what you usually find is the majority of people who consider themselves unimpeachable trans allies on the right side of history, are actually not completely on board, because they've never talked about the detail and aren't comfortable doing so. They've read a few Pink News headlines, or the odd Guardian article. One of those ones where a blond athlete like Emill Bridges appears looking winsome all on her own with her bike or being interviewed. But they've never seen a picture of Emly standing in a group of women and frankly towering over them. That's because those pictures get spiked.

The distinction between biological sex and cultural expressions of gender may be a good place to start, because it is accepted by many genderists. Few object to males who embrace the accoutrements of feminine culture, but things like changing rooms, toilets, sports, prisons are segregated for reasons of biological sex.

Males are bigger, stronger and more predatory. Regardless of how they identify (males who identify as women are actually over-represented among sex offenders).

I have a collection of photographs. The girl guide leader in the dominatrix gear, Virginia Ivy on the cycling podium dwarfing the second and third, Princess Mom and the baby, the many threatening corset wearers armed with bats, oh it’s a big collection and growing every day

I have also a few pictures of the victims : the girls with their mastectomy scars, their irreversible hair loss, their irreversible stubble.

One picture is worth a thousand words, As they say.

I'm glad you asked this, because I have been wondering about this myself. I have been starting conversations with strangers or at least people who aren't in my inner inner circle. And I'm finding a lot of good responses. I've started doing things like wearing iHeart J. K. Rowling T-shirts. Or purple green and white earrings. I seem to find that there's this little dance that Has to be had before the conversation can actually open up.
for example, talking about favorite books or movies I might bring up one of the Harry Potter books. People who are super into gender woo will almost always say something to the effect of yeah, the books are great but "too bad J. K. Rowling ___."
this is an immediate signifier, that they are not going to be responsive to a conversation in a positive manner. But if they say something like I" like those books too" or "I think people are too hard on her," You can kind of expand on the conversation slowly from there.

somebody else mentioned sports. And that's a good starting place. I find tiptoeing in is a good idea. once you meet somebody else's gender critical in the wild, you will usually find that both of you are very relieved to be able to talk about it.
I've been surprised by how many I have run across.

Agree with PPs on sports and prisons as being a good place to start a conversation.

I've also found conversations around the social transitioning of children to be helpful, by exploring the concern that in taking an unquestioning affirmative approach, schools, healthcare providers and parents are completely failing deeply unhappy children, many of whom have autism or are dealing with other complex issues, who are desperately looking for help and acceptance, and the only bloody place they are finding it is in gender ideology, because all other channels for mental health support have been utterly cut to the bone.

So the argument is less about how children with genuine gender dysphoria should be supported, and more about the fact that for every dysphoric child, there are a hundred more confused, vulnerable children who are not getting the mental health support they need, and may actually end up on a medical pathway which has profound consequences for their adult lives.

Of course it would also be helpful if the papers (as per a Daily Mirror link I saw here yesterday) didn't refer to "sex-change operations". There's no such thing. Clearly, this also cannot be said often enough.

Hmm, I guess another thing you will realise when you start to post about this stuff is how quickly you will get deleted for posting truthful statements, which seems a bit ridiculous.
Anyway, such is the madness of it all...

Yes, I think a great way to discuss this topic with people is to ask them to clarify what they actually mean when they say x, or what is their actual understanding of y, and then take it from there with a series of further questions.

I find that many people who parrot the stonewall phrases they've picked up at work or who recoil in horror if you misgender a celebrity in conversation actually care quite a lot about biology and the safety of women and children when you get into the details of what they think.

A few people I assumed were completely captured actually turned out to be quite GC after all, but you'd never know it from the "be kind" stuff they say. Lots of people don't realise that other people mean this stuff (e.g. TWAW) literally, as they've ascribed a level of common sense and decency to evangelical gender identity ideologues that simply isn't there in many cases.

The whole ideology balances precariously on the 'transwomen are women' mantra.

All of it.

Indeed. And, of course, the fact that TWAW is apparently such a live issue, and TMAM is much less talked about, is also significant.

This is where echo chambers and epistemological bubbles have gotten them - unable to rebut any logical argument or criticism.

This is also why 'no debate' was the mantra for so long - they can't actually logically argue this stuff on it's merits, so they need to employ emotional manipulation instead.

HI OP, many of us have been where you are - I spent a long time wondering what all the fuss was about, until I read and heard some things that seemed too ridiculous to be true, and then some more ridiculous things - until I thought I was going mad! Then I found this board, and was so relieved at the rational arguments.

Anyway, a few things that have helped me gain confidence in my arguments over the last few years have been listening to brilliant people like Helen Joyce or Andrew Doyle. They both articulate the issues so well and so logically.

Just to note, Andrew Doyle is a gay man who is speaking out how homophobic the whole gender identity movement is.

I think what a pp said about TWAW being literal is very interesting. Most people say it in a woolly be kind sort of way, but if they are asked to consider it in a literal way they might see sense. I was watching a video with a discussion between a paramedic trans supporter (i think he was trans himself can't quite remember) and some GC guy, GC guy says right you are called out on a medical emergency, patient is a trans woman and tells you they are pregnant and in labour, do you prepare to deliver a baby? Trans supporter had no reply. When faced with TWAW as a literal fact surely most people of sense can see the truth.

They are women in the same way X-Factor contestants who’ve “dreamed of this all my life” are wonderful singers.

The whole ideology balances precariously on the 'transwomen are women' mantra.

All of it.

Because the moment you state the fact that transwomen are MALE it all comes toppling down

Can males compete in female sports, can males be housed with female prisoners, can males be lesbians, can males stay on female only hospital wards, can males be naked with women in places where they are also naked and/or vulnerable, can males take prizes and awards on all women shortlists, do males count as females on equality counts, can male criminals have their crime recorded as committed by females, can males be counted as females in data... it goes on and on.

So I would start by asking, in what way are these males women?

Pink News recently said the idea that men are stronger than women was a "hateful narrative" precisely because it's a good place to start.

I have a hard time understanding people who express the above view. Regarding sport, my own experience provides an example of how misguided the idea is.

This is a number of years ago, but I used to play county womens cricket in the premier league (i.e. the only level higher is playing for England). As part of pre-season prep one year our first team played our county u17 boys team. They annihilated us. Batting, bowling, fielding - completely swept the floor. It was totally embarrassing. It wasn't even a match it was so one-sided. To be clear, my team were not teenagers, we were an adult womens team that included a (then) current England player and a number of players in the England womens development scheme. Womens sports are restricted for a reason.

I'm sure lots of women here will have their own similar stories.

It is perhaps notable that it's only homosexuality that Stonewall redefines. Their glossary defines 'homosexual' as "someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender", but the word "heterosexual" is "a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men".

Absolutely about the other women and not the space itself, as evidenced by the TW who, upon inserting themselves into a female space, was aghast that the women decided to change and undress in another room. They then sought legal advice on their online forum to see if there was a legal way to force the women back to using the original women's space. No joke.
It's never been about the room itself, it's about the willing or unwilling participation of women to validate their supposed womanhood by accepting them into the fold, as it were.
What use is an empty room to them womaning away on their own with nobody there to see it?

As others have said, sport is a good place to start. Because the biological-sex-based reasons for segregation are clear. Pink News recently said the idea that men are stronger than women was a "hateful narrative" precisely because it's a good place to start.

The thing at the heart of it all, though, is self-identification.
It fundamentally places women and girls at the mercy of men.
It replaces female consent with male say-so.
It requires women and girls to accommodate male wishes and desires.

Yes, and that's another argument that the OP could use.

That transgenderism directly undermines even the very concept of gay rights.

There's no such thing as a homosexual man, or a lesbian under trans ideology.

People don't like to think of themselves as homophobic, so it's a good question to pose. Do you believe in homosexuality, as protected by equality law? Because if you do, then you're nasty, terf bigot.

I wasn't aware about Stonewall's reframing of"same sex attracted" to "same gender attracted"

Very interesting and just another way to intimidate and silence lesbians.

I don't know a single gay man of my acquaintance who would contemplate a sexual relationship with a TransMan. They laugh at the very idea and then just carry on as they were.
Because this sort of pressure only ever goes one way.