Guardian readers' response to Rustin piece on Phoenix v OU

I always want to take twits like this one and ask whether they believe they should have legal protection from someone's reality that they're entitled to steal their car/that the car is theirs.

I feel certain we'd suddenly find that he expects reality and law to apply to him when his skin is in the game.

There is an area of philosophy called ontology, that examines the nature of reality. It has been written about for years.

Lots of writers recognise the difference between the material/physical world and the very experiences that can come from inhabiting it.

Even the most ardent 'relativists' (those who focus on reality being subjective) tend to acknowledge the objective nature of the material world. Rather than contest this, they place emphasis on the meaning we give to material aspects. Those who don't accept this tend to end up in a nihilistic cul-de-sac.

People have a right to believe delusions and state them. I'd also fight for the right of trans activists to claim there are 100 sexes and we can change sex.

The problem is suggesting nobody can express disagreement for fear of 'denying someone else's reality'.

Sex in humans is binary and immutable, that is a provable, observable fact.

That is THE reality.

In the first comment quoted "other people's reality" isn't reality at all. It is perception, imagination, even delusion.

I think we are on a journey from 'no debate', to 'poor quality debate' to 'reasoned debate'......and will end up with 'no debate worth having' as everything will be put to bed - extremists with indefensible ideas who will be shouting in to the void.

There are two 'TWAW' letters and two counter views.

Given the absolute state of the Guardian's output in the past few years that's progress.

It's finally starting to permit debate.

And we all know what happens once that starts...

Well, apart from the alarming ease with which the writer is happy to discard freedom of speech, I would start with how the statement relies on imprecise concepts to make its point. Obviously, I understand in broad terms the message, but actually I don’t precisely know what is meant by “denying other people’s reality”.

What is other people’s reality exactly? Is it different from reality?
If I don’t agree with a belief (assuming this is what is meant by the above) does this amount to denying it?

The sentence makes sense apart from this nebulous phrase which is doing all the heavy lifting.

If we don’t even understand or agree on what this is, how can we assess whether it is serious enough to warrant policing speech?

But this sort of thing is par for the course in this ideology. It’s how I often find myself spotting examples of people who seem to be ardently for the cause saying things that fly in the face of its ideological underpinnings. Most people simply don’t understand the arguments when you dig into it, while a small number are consciously using obfuscating language.

Holeinamole · Today 08:19

This, from the letter by F. Green, is so telling:

I noted this in her letter:

Susanna Rustin states that the women involved in recent employment tribunals were “targeted” simply for their belief, but these have serious real-world effects on real lives.

Is she so stupid, or purblind that she thinks that all those women were not subjected to sustained campaigns of illegal harassment? And bullying? Has she actually read any account of Jo Phoenix's horrible ordeal at the hands of the Open University, FFS?

"It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected."

This is the most stupid statement I have read in a long time. Where do we even start.

Well and what 'reality' is ok and what isnt. Why is the reality of anxorexics who believe they need to restrict their food/are fat/need to lose weight - not protected, why do we treat that as a mental health issue or certainly disordered thinking but not 'gender' reality

Why do we treat the reality of the serial killer or criminal who believes they're someone else or believes they can do what they want, we treat this as a MH issue or criminal issue or psychological issue that needs support/treatment/change - we dont say, yes Mr Fraudster you can take this money/open all these accounts in different names, we recognise thats your reality

Its madness

Ahh thanks @ArabellaScott .

So what is really being said is:
Sex is immutable and dictates gender = invalidates trans lives

And this explains a recent conversation with an intelligent friend who believed that this was the definition of "gender critical". Which as most people here would say is in fact

Sex is immutable and sometimes matters = important to protect women as members of a sex class

I was really hoping this might be a thread about how people’s eyes are opening. Reading the nonsense about how expressing GC views endangers people was instead like going back in time five years or so.

It’s unsubstantiated. How is it that people are still getting away with repeating this nonsense as though it were fact?

GC women can write as many finely crafted essays as they like pointing out logical inconsistencies, concerns and examples, all the while - as in JKR’s famous essay - taking pains to be clear that they wish no harm to trans people and distancing themselves from right wing bigots.

And this is the shit that comes back. It’s positively Trumpian.

This is the dull-but-accurate one:

The argument is presented as a false dichotomy plus a strawman that misrepresents gc feminist views.

Here Gc views are suggested as similar to those of religious Conservatives- that sex should dictate gender. 'Women should do the washing up'

The counter view is presented as 'sex shouldn't determine gender'. But this contains the further view that gender has primacy: 'person washing up is a woman'

In fact Gc feminist view is that gender is arbitrary and not inherently connected to sex. 'Anyone can do the washing up'

Where is that handy Venn diagram that shows it all much more clearly?!

Hehehe those first two letters made me laugh, thanks!

And thanks for all your comments on this thread, I can't really say it better. The thing that struck me was right at the start of the first letter: biological sex is immutable = denying the reality of trans lives. If someone can explain how that makes any sense I'd appreciate it.

My position is this: reality + compassion + boundaries = society I'd like to live in.

Stripping away all the waffle, the key point is:

'belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity'

And yes, that's omitting the fact that feminists suggest sex should have primacy in some situations.

If I was marking this essay, wow, the questions I'd ask...

What is a self evident belief?
Why do you think this observation is a belief? What's the difference between a belief and an observation?
What is gender identity, and how does it differ from biological sex?
Yes, any "should" based principle is prescriptive. Do you think this is wrong? How would you establish primacy other than prescriptively? What do you mean by primacy? Do you think "Socio-legal category" means the same thing as law? Are you assuming that if one factor has primacy in one context then it must have primacy in all contexts?
Why do you think that your characterisation of the GC position is the right one?

For some people it takes a split second, for others a lifetime. But without debate, it can never happen at all.

Bet they're all civil servants. That's my lived reality.

You just know that if the writer of that letter spent 5 minutes posting on a thread here or 5 minutes with any of us in person they’d have such illogicality pointed out to them. One can only assume they drift through life never coming across, listening or engaging with anyone who does, and probably have that world view constantly reinforced to them.

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

The view that TW are in every way W denies my reality so should that be banned.

My views as an atheist denies other people's reality that there is a god. Should atheism be banned.

Thanks for sharing, OP. It is worrying to think how many people are going along with such genuinely dangerous ideas.

'Questioning other people's reality' is the bedrock of a healthy, free and functioning democracy.

Again, why does the writer think it doesn't work the other way around?

the self-evident belief that biological sex and gender identity are different should not be used as cover for a prescriptive belief that gender identity should have primacy over biological sex as a socio-legal category

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

'Other people's reality' is a ridiculous concept. Reality is reality.

”Prizing your own freedom of speech over other people’s ability to live safe and good lives..."

Because valuing freedom of speech is obviously so much worse than prizing your own feelings of fantasy identity or your fetish above other people's ability to live safe and good lives? Well of course it is, as long as those people are mere women and children, not men.

I guess that's what it is, huh? It takes a split second to realise the problems with suggesting we should not be allowed to 'question someone else's reality', or that we should not have sex as a category.