Cambridge university debate

I haven’t been able to find this. Maybe someone who is on twitter could ask?

Maeve is a shero! The lesbian speaker was also good- calm and consistent in her delivery.
I like Buck - strong advocate against transing kids. I know, I know 'true trans' etc but isn't this how things used to be when transexuals (old, old term) were a minority? Buck acknowledges that dysphoria is a mental illness; how can it not be? Buck also has stated many times that it isn't changing sex but living life presenting as the opposite sex which eases dysphoria.
Agree 'Sammy' sounds like a twit (Monty Python's upper class twit anyone?) Patently uninterested in womens' rights of course. Blah blah.
The speaker talking about drag/TW being at the forefront of fighting in the struggle for rights. No mention of Fred Sargeant????
As for Dr HW- same old same old. 'I'm a doctor' so there! And 'sex assigned' bullshit. This woman might as well have sent a recording as she never deviates from her same speech. Grifters gotta grift. Awful woman.

Fantastic debate and proper airing of views. Do think it may be the start of those seeds of doubt for many folk who have unthinkingly fallen into allyship. More of this please but I wish we saw more of this in our actual political chambers in Wales, Scotland and Westminster.

I felt a bit sorry for the non binary woman. Like how she could acknowledge that she ‘made a terrible man’ (I wonder why?), but instead of concluding she had to accept that she is a woman, she chose to pretend she is neither. I bet it will pass in time as she matures and realises all women think the shit parts of being a woman are shit.

im glad someone else mentioned how insufferable the Alphonso bit was - I found it very hard to even engage with what he was saying. Loved Maeve and particularly the commenter in the audience about how lesbians can’t associate.

Webberly, batshit as always..

there was an abnormally high number of abstentions.

Also just watched one speaker - Serena - call for people to abstain as the category LGBTQIA was meaningless.

@BonfireLady no I don’t remember the before results being shared. Maybe they are out there somewhere!

I don’t recall doing any debating at my secondary comp. Would have been good as I was pretty opinionated back then and tried to campaign for girls to be able to play football and have a trouser option for school uniform (unsuccessfully). I love listening to debate. Sad I might be but I sometimes put the HOC on in the background at work just to hear the debate. It really is a skill.

This is a great point: “The more everyone follows the TRA call to action to "educate yourself", the less the blank cheque of unquestionable allyship.”

Not really demonstrating elite-level thinking skills there.

Middle class non binary person contradicted themselves twice in that short speech

Firstly she says people dont just hear a label thing and want to be it after saying she heard a label thing and wanted to be it.

Then she said she wasn't really a man after all and then said trans are what they are. But she wasn't as she just said.

Webberley was her usual polished self. I use that word because to anyone who hasn't come across her before, her "I'm a doctor and I know and care more than you" spiel probably does work.

It's a pity that nobody was able to intervene & point out that for all her claims she is not actually allowed to practice as a doctor because she refuses to engage with revalidation. She qualified in 1992 so is probably in her late 50s but hasn't held a licence to practice for nearly two years & it's extremely unlikely she will ever be able to practice again.

there was an abnormally high number of abstentions.

This is a very positive sign.

Does the radio clip include the number of yes, no and abstentions before the debate as well? A comparison of the two would be particularly interesting.

At my (state) secondary school, we had one debating lesson. We were each assigned a topic and had to pick a side to represent. I had the death penalty and was talking for it. I can't quite remember how I ended up with that, especially as I am against the death penalty.

A vote was taken at the start and everyone in the class was against it. Obviously I didn't put my hand up, but I was too.

By the end, the room was split half-ish still against it and half-ish abstaining.

My arguments were pretty simple. I used the emotional pull of how families' victims get the eye-for-an-eye closure (their loved ones life got cut short, now the perpetrator's is being too) and logic (it should only be used for murderers and when it's beyond doubt and cheaper than keeping murderers in prison). To be clear, I disagreed with what I was saying as I don't think there is ever justification for the state to take a life.

The key thing was that I had sufficiently convinced enough people in the the room (so as to be noticeable) to feel unsure that their previously held certainty still made sense.

For this debate, I suspect that the nonsense coming from Alfonso didn't really help the pro cause much, but putting everything together it sounds like lots of people recognised that it wasn't a simple case of "let's just be allies and support the activists". Even if we don't know what the vote was before the debate, that in itself is significant. The more everyone follows the TRA call to action to "educate yourself", the less the blank cheque of unquestionable allyship.

Thank you for sharing. I had to watch it in installments and saw Buck yesterday while having my lunch. It was a great opener.

I like listening to Buck speak and this was probably the best yet - another highlight is a video which is also with Blair White, talking discussing why "trans kids" should not be a thing. Yes, I agree that Buck pushes the "true trans" but the admission of mental illness being the root cause of the desire to transition and clarity that nobody changes sex are key.

Sadly the majority of the other speakers were tedious. Alfonso (I think I remember seeing his nonsense on X) was particularly bad, especially as he was speaking for the motion. It came across as a deliberate sabotage TBH, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he genuinely believed that his drivel made sense. Looking at the faces on everyone in shot while he's speaking is well worth it. By the end, everyone is clearly willing him to stop.

Sammy the Twerp was using the normal emotionally loaded talking points, which still do work TBF

Maeve was 🔥🔥🔥🔥

Webberley was her usual polished self. I use that word because to anyone who hasn't come across her before, her "I'm a doctor and I know and care more than you" spiel probably does work. That she batted off 12 interventions with her frustrated little "no thank you"s suggests people are seeing through it.

On the Rachel Johnson radio interview Maeve said they lost on the Yes or No answer, but there was an abnormally high number of abstentions.

Perhaps indicating people thinking more about the issue rather than just following blindly.

The short piece can be listened to again on LBC catchup- Rachel Johnson yesterday evening around 1.32 hours in.

edited for typo

Does anyone know what the vote on the motion was?

Do they do a before and after the debate vote?

Thank you for posting this.

Gosh how proud would you be if you were Maeve’s mother?! She was just so amazing. I felt utterly ashamed of myself for all the bloody EDI training I’ve sat through not daring to say what I really think

The archers transing a Cambridge University student is peak middle class transing.

I’ve just written on another thread that Maeve was on Rachel Johnson’s radio show earlier this evening on LBC and she stopped me in my tracks, fabulous!!!

Maeve Halligan is a most impressive speaker. Great to see Helen Joyce sitting behind her.

I think the same.

I'm sure in years to come there will be some fascinating studies done on people like her during this time.

Maybe it was really Hayley Cropper that floated her boat, but the Archers sounds better at Cambridge.

Helium?

Webberley is unhinged. I'd say personality disordered. No idea re NDness.