£10,000 prize for arguing both sides of trans debate

If only they were brave enough to open the essay competition to allcomers. Ah, go on, go on.

The bottom of the article says "Lord Sumption confirmed last night that he will be a judge in the competition."

A serious and real judge!

Same. I would love to enter this competition.

And unfortunately I don't think undergraduates are likely to have enough life experience to really do this topic justice.

I'm completely confident I could write an essay on this, having been exposed to the other side's arguments often enough. I'm just disappointed it's only open to undergraduates.

Both Kathleen Stock and Jane Clare Jones have written essays that systematically expose the flaws in the TWAW argument, though, so you really don't need anyone else to waste their time.

I'm thinking the aim is to encourage young students particularly to think critically- because lack of this, and free speech issues, are such an issue in the universities.
Rather than the focus being on the question/task in and of itself.

Especially as uni students will be the next gen of professionals with influence. And the universities often don't seem to be doing this themselves.

I don't know about writing an essay covering both sides but here is my attempt in two sentences.

Transwomen believe that they are women. Women know that they aren't.

He’s acknowledging that trans women prejudges the outcome of the essay, and uses transwomen as being ‘problematic’ but less so than the alternative.

He is, but the Times journalist got it completely arse about face.

But no, I agree that most of these people don't believe they are actually are women, just that it's better for everyone to pretend that they are.

It would never be convincing, though. It hasn't convinced anybody, so far. The only reason things have got as far as they have is because of the wholesale intimidation and untruths, like suicide stats, etc.
^^
So if arguing for TWAW has to be 'persuasive', I don't believe that's possible, unless you lie.

It would have to be based on emotion, appeals to the "vulnerability" of trans people and the right for everyone to "live authentically". I slightly disagree that this type of rhetoric hasn't ever persuaded people. It has persuaded plenty of people (men and women who have internalised sexism/misogyny) who don't see women's rights as all that relevant and haven't explored the issue much, that trans people are a small vulnerable minority who can be accommodated fully without much trouble to anything important.

This. I am tempted to ID as an undergraduate. I could really do with 10k about now and I bet anyone who's spent any time on here would be able to do as well as or better than any of the other undergrads entering. Although obviously undergrads who are also on here probably have the best advantage.

It's very exclusionary limiting it to undergraduates only isn't it? What about struggling single mothers who can't afford to go to uni but definitely id as undergrads?

what am I missing?
He’s acknowledging that trans women prejudges the outcome of the essay, and uses transwomen as being ‘problematic’ but less so than the alternative.

As everyone knows, we can’t have this debate without differentiating between two groups. One term grammatically requires TIM to be a subset of women. The other term is less explicit, I think. It doesn’t intrinsically mean they absolutely aren’t a form of woman.

And yes, debates require a motion- ‘this house believes that TW are women’, which debaters either support or reject.

I could write that TWAW because I know all the arguments. Such as they are. Even the one that says we know they're not, but we think you should do it anyway, because 'inclusion'.

It would never be convincing, though. It hasn't convinced anybody, so far. The only reason things have got as far as they have is because of the wholesale intimidation and untruths, like suicide stats, etc.

So if arguing for TWAW has to be 'persuasive', I don't believe that's possible, unless you lie.

well done @mypronounsaremine !

I wrote to the Edinlight email address and had a swift response confirming that they do know which way round the "transwomen / trans women" name usage goes and that they have asked the Times to correct the article.

I wonder whether he knows that on trans activist Twitter they believe the opposite?

I'm pretty sure he does, as pp have said, the direct quote, as opposed to the Times journalist's summary, doesn't make sense otherwise.

noblegiraffe · Today 09:37

Never mind undergraduates, it would be interesting to see if some on here could write the essay.

I am entirely confident that many of the ver well informed, erudite women on FWR could write such an essay.

I've seen many examples of their work.

I wonder whether he knows that on trans activist Twitter they believe the opposite?

I've been told that "trans woman" is appropriate because trans is used as an adjective in a similar was to "black woman" or young woman", whereas "transwoman" turns it into a standalone noun with a different meaning to "woman".

“To enter the Edinlight Essay Prize, students must submit an essay in two parts – arguing persuasively both for and against the proposition: transwomen are women.”

Yes, so if using "trans women are women" would affirm the "point we are asking students to argue against" I take it that he's reading the same thing into it that GC feminists and TRAs do, that adding the space presupposes that "trans women" are a type of woman, not a noun "transwomen" which is describing something other than a woman. I've watched @nauticant link and Kapil Summan is a legal expert and completely on point with everything he says in the talk about gender identity ideology and activism, impressively so. I want to hear more from him. So on that basis I think the journalist or someone editing has it wrong.

This link is to a blog that tried something like this all the way back in 2017…

https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/transgender-intellectual-turing-test/

https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/intellectual-turing-test-results/

The blog audience was nerdy and the essays are verbose. Honestly, I didn’t even have the patience to read all of them, let alone predict whether they were sincere, but I still found it interesting to note that there actually are some trans types who can coherently argue a GC position.

I suppose if I was doing my best to argue 'for the other side' I'd probably reject the validity of question, and argue instead that the really important thing is that TW should [nearly] always be treated and respected as women. I suppose you could do this quite reasonably, with most of the arguments being around what was meant by "nearly always".

I think someone should enter identifying as an undergraduate - either that’s fine, or point proved?

I actually am an undergraduate, so I might give it a go 😁

So the proposition is entitled: 'Transwomen are women' and entrants are required to present arguments for and against?

I never got to grips with debating protocols. Is the proposition always a statement, not a question? Because I'd have preferred to see it named something more open ended, e.g. 'Are transwomen women?', but I've a feeling that's not how debates work - does anyone know?

As for the organiser's viewpoint, I don't expect anyone who's gone to the trouble of setting this up not to have their own opinion. What I do expect is for them to be capable of evaluating the arguments, regardless of their personal views or affiliations - that's if they're the ones doing the judging.

We shall see. I still believe it's a good idea and not something we'd have seen a few years ago.

The fifth post of this thread is where I said the “transwomen” mixup is more likely the journalist’s mistake than the organisers‘. Cassandra even among a forum full of Cassandras!

And thanks for this Nauticant.
Will watch this- it's very clear from the original clip what his viewpoint is. And I agree with it!

The bit about using or not using the space is an indirect quote, so it's possible that Jonathan Ames has misinterpreted what Summan said.

I'm also puzzled about the actual quote from Summan, though:

“It makes no sense for us to use ‘trans women’ since it affirms the point we’re asking entrants to argue against,” he said. “It is true that ‘transwomen’ affirms the opposite,” he conceded, “but we have to choose one.”

If the essay requirement is to put both sides of the argument, then how can using either transwomen or trans women "affirm the point we're asking entrants to argue against"?