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

Yeah, he thinks it's bollocks. The article is unclear. I'm not reading it again, but presumably he does understand the difference.

it may be an interesting exercise tho. And I still think it will come down to faux science. Because once people are asked to actually write down their bollocks, its nonsense tends to become clear.

Yep. I gave feedback on trans rights training at work recently. “None of it was new. None of it was true.”
We know the rhetoric.

This debate between Colin Wright and Alice Dreger would be a good resource for researching arguments in this point I think:
https://www.youtube.com/live/K2aKX8Mcz9Q?si=DXcwvDHaRAubrygQ

The entry link has ‘transwomen are women’ .

“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.”

Either we watch this space over the next day and see if this changes, or they have it arse about face to be provocative. At this stage I don’t believe it is done to be provocative. But I am very happy to be shown to be wrong and that it is the by line journo has it wrong. If it is not a by line journo error, I think whoever is organising might be getting many emails right now.

I had thought current AI chatbots were directed to affirm TWAW, but Bing seems prepared to at least plan an entry for the contest. Could be worse.

The Edinlight essay prize asks entrants to write an essay that evenly explores two sides of an argument: "That transwomen are women". Write two paragraphs for this contest: one giving arguments for the position and one giving arguments against.

This is a challenging topic that has sparked a lot of debate and controversy in recent years. Here are two possible paragraphs for the essay contest, one for and one against the position that transwomen are women.

For: Transwomen are women because gender identity is more important than biological sex in determining one’s womanhood. Gender identity is one’s internal sense of being male, female, neither, or both, and it does not always match the sex assigned at birth. Transwomen are people who were assigned male at birth but identify as female, and they often experience gender dysphoria, a distressing condition caused by the incongruence between one’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Transwomen deserve to be recognized and respected as women, because they have the same rights and dignity as any other human being. Denying their womanhood is a form of discrimination and violence that harms their mental and physical health.

Against: Transwomen are not women because biological sex is more important than gender identity in determining one’s womanhood. Biological sex is a scientific fact based on one’s chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy, and it cannot be changed by surgery or hormones. Women are people who have the XX chromosomes, female reproductive organs, and female secondary sex characteristics, and they face specific challenges and oppressions due to their biology, such as menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and sexism. Transwomen are people who have the XY chromosomes, male reproductive organs, and male secondary sex characteristics, and they do not share the same experiences and struggles as women. Claiming that transwomen are women is a form of appropriation and erasure that undermines the reality and identity of women.

I think the most sympathetic argument of the "other side" is, essentially, gender stereotypes exist and are so entrenched that you can't stop most people from basing their beliefs about each sex's character on them, that you can't beat them so may as well join them.

If the only way to be happily treated as a "feminine" charactered person is to be perceived as female then that seems the straightforward option.

Obviously it just reinforces the incorrect and harmful assumptions rather than fights against them, but I'm alright Jack.

On the GC side, we would say the labels are wrong, not your body.

Since we have a newspaper report that might be ambiguous, and we don't have Summan's words used to write that report, I'll post again the link from above where you will be able to see Summan's words in another context to have some understanding of how he views things:

s

Likewise, but being able to review both sides arguments and evidence then presenting them independently - even when you think it's bullshit - is a fantastic still to have. I have to do this in my day job every day and have done for 20+yrs.

Critical thinking isn't about believing something, it's about being able to pull data, information, stories, whatever together and present it without bias.

Pound to a penny the TWAW arguments will be distilled into disorders of sexual development.

Yes.

Well ummm yeah, I could easily write the damn essay.
Most of us here are very clued up on what constitutes a trans woman (why again are trans men not mentioned) its feelings and thoughts.
And we all surely by now know facts and figures for why we dont want men in any gender in our spaces.

Sadly I'm not a undergrad and I don't know any or I would put them on to this.

The marking would be fun to see. I hope we get all the essays printed so we can see how well they do.

It shouldnt require a 10k bribe to get students to think about both sides.

Pound to a penny the TWAW arguments will be distilled into disorders of sexual development.

FWIW, I think the principle of encouragingly properly reasoned and balanced debate is laudable and this could see some interesting work in future. It could genuinely be an excellent essay prize to have on your CV.

It's a damn shame the organisers failed to make their own opinions similarly balanced when talking to the press.

I really think we should leave the field clear for the undergraduates for now though!

Almost worth signing up to the Open University or similar on a part time Certificate of High Education (£3642 per year) to be able to qualify for this..... 😁

“It makes no sense for us to use ‘trans women’ since it affirms the point we’re asking entrants to argue against,” he said

Isn’t the point that they are meant to be arguing both sides?

I, too, think it would be an excellent exercise.

Given that the opening sentence by Ames is that the competition "will ask undergraduate students to settle the issue" I give his analysis of what's going on no credibility at all. The contest very clearly isn't setting out to do anything of the sort!

Maybe put it in for the currently-empty FAQ? https://edinlight.net/

We were going to have a "steel manning" thread recently. There are lots of FWR posters who know TRA arguments inside out.

I could write it, and many of us could.

The OP admits that they would struggle to write an essay that wasn’t laughably one-sided which I think is particularly honest.

So it would be an excellent exercise.

I think the journalist who wrote the Times piece has got confused. As @JoIsBraverThanIAm says, the direct quote makes more sense.