'Toxic' debate

[pombear]

When the fuck did the debate get termed this?

Just listening to Question Time. Claire Fox flying the flag (thank god).

But I've heard this word about three times on the BBC today and Dimbleby has just said 'everyone is agreed that it's a toxic debate'.

From trans activists over the last couple of years it's been no-platforming, harrassing of women, doxxing of women, harrasing their employers, #nodebate, 'suck my cock', T**f insults, violence, blocking of people wishing to discuss changes to the law.

Toxic applies only to one aspect of this debate. I'm furious that every voice, including those transwomen and transmen, women, any one who wishes to disagree with the statement 'transwomen are women' is also smeared with the word 'toxic'.

I'm of the opinion that it tends to be hard right types supporting the GC side because they are obviously not motivated by being "nice" and empathetic. They are not afraid to speak out against the crowd.

Personally, I think it's because they don't need to be afraid of losing their parliamentary seats or their jobs or their political influence, because their supporters are largely unaffected by the TRA narrative. I suspect there are plenty of people of moderate views who agree with them, but who won't speak out because it might damage them.

Yes that as well

I think one way to make a debate (I.e. studio discussion ) less "toxic" would be to ban the use of disputed terminology. I.e. no references to "woman", "man" or " female" etc. (Disputed terminology as one side thinks they relate to gender identity and the other biology ).

I know this concept ( banning the word woman) would offend many here, but I know I could argue for sex segregation without those words, but I'd be very interested to hear the self id side make their point.

It kind of reminds me of when my DD was being sexually harassed in the classroom and she finally snapped and told the boys to fuck off. The line from school: six of one, half a dozen of the other (yet she was the one sent out of the classroom).

Not toxic from both sides, but it's a nice convenient narrative for those who want it to be.

How toxic is the debate coming from each side? We could just look at some examples.

TRAs have:
Harassed venues where women had arranged to hold meetings to talk about women's rights, so that the venues cancelled the bookings.

Physically assaulted a woman when she was meeting other women in a public place following the cancellation by one of these venues.

Harrassed mumsnet by trying to persuade companies not to advertise on mumsnet.

Harrassed mumsnet until they made different rules for the feminist board designed to censor gender critical voices.

Refused to take part in TV and radio discussions with gender critical people, in an attempt to get the item cancelled as it would not be balanced.

Posted offensive comments and threats against women on social media.

Reported women to the police for posting unpalatable facts about them on social media.

I could go on...

Can someone point me to the toxicity coming from the gender critical side? Because I'm struggling to think of anything.

Whole thing now has the look of a psy ops campaign harnessed and funded by the extreme right to take down feminism and divide the left.

It's not us. (Note, I'm not Extreme Right, merely Right wing). Some of the TRAs are maybe right wing but the majority as I see it politically identify as Left Wing and Progressives. All those Antifa-types who show up to harass WPUK & FPFW meetings are hard Left. I agree there are strong psyops elements but money seems to come in from pharma companies and people like George Soros who have a demonstrated interest in undermining the Establishment. I'm with Freespeacher, it's more Leftist subversive elements and Woke Bros than the Right Wing. Indeed, it's only the Right Wing media (such as survives) that actually covers the counter-TRA viewpoint.

Incidentally, I am no longer on Twitter following my outrageous statement that GD in children correlates with autism.

I'm of the opinion that it tends to be hard right types supporting the GC side because they are obviously not motivated by being "nice" and empathetic. They are not afraid to speak out against the crowd.

There's an element of truth to that. (Though I don't think we need to talk about the "hard" right). We (Right Wingers) do tend to be less focused on Identity Politics and validating feelings. We regard both of those as good things, btw. ;) But I think it's a little unfair to suggest it's only that (if you are). It requires something more than simply not being afraid to speak up but also having a reason to do so. And I think for a lot of us it's the obvious insanity and anti-science nature of current Trans Activism. Right Wing people's biggest fear is the Mob. It's government or society ordering us what we can say or what we can think. And the TRA movement typifies both for us. It's lunatics taking over the asylum.

(Just me personal view from where I am)

Incidentally, I am no longer on Twitter following my outrageous statement that GD in children correlates with autism.

So is referring to any peer reviewed research now considered to be hate speech on twitter? Are you sure that it was that bit and not your comment that girls who think they're trans might grow up to be 'normal lesbians' if they're left alone? Transing away the gay seems to be quite popular on there.

I was at a football match yesterday and it occured to me that football provides a useful release for a sort of male anger.

Bournemouth on a sunny day playing against their local rivals was all very good natured, and everyone would have been quite surprised if there had been any problems as fans left the ground - certainly no need for any segregation. Yet inside was different: "Scummers", "Mind the gap" "Who are you?" and so on. A sort of outlet for normal male aggression.

It strikes me that TRAs want to do the same but using feminist groups.

So is referring to any peer reviewed research now considered to be hate speech on twitter? Are you sure that it was that bit and not your comment that girls who think they're trans might grow up to be 'normal lesbians' if they're left alone?

It's specifically that tweet that was singled out (it was one of nine in that thread) and so it had to be either that Gender Dysphoria correlates with autism or that many young girls identified as trans later desist and become (or rather always were) lesbians. I suppose it could have been either, but both are well backed up by research so I struggled to work out what in the tweet was "hate speech" or discrimination. I guessed it was the reference to autism and that some especially uninformed person took offense.

On reflection, it might have been the reference to detransition as this is high heresy to TRAs / Mermaids. After all, there are few stronger arguments against mastectomies and life-changing hormone treatments than the idea someone might (gasp!) change their mind when older.

Either way, the fact I was suspended for it is a condemnation of Twitter, as far as I'm concerned.

I think toxic is a useful word. You can use it, and people will agree, and then mention the truly dreadful examples of toxicity which almost all come from transactivists. By that stage they're already agreeing with you, and you're both being terribly reasonable, and no one can disagree with you that those examples are toxic, and they're incapable of coming up with anything to contrast it with. If there is an example of vile abuse, you can genuinely deplore it, but state very truthfully that feminists campaigning against self ID don't engage in abuse or violent threats. It's a useful word for getting people to agree with you before sending them a link to terfisaslur setting out ones argument.

Blimey Oldman. That's a shocking reason to suspend you.

Yeah I am sick of the 'both sides are as bad as each other' nonsense.

MPs are too scared to air their true views on this. MPs who support trans ideology though, post freely on the topic. So those who support it do not get abused, they may get questions, but not abuse that scares them into silence. So that alone proves that one side is doing the silencing, and its not feminists.

Charlie I agree, but that's only useful when you're able to move forwards from the 'toxic' label to a discussion one on one.

For many people not immersed in this right now, seeing 'toxic debate' signifies 'everyone is being toxic', when the reality is that anyone who wants to stray from the mantra 'transwomen are women' are labelled as 'transphobic' and therefore toxic.

Excellent article in the Herald that pp on this thread may not have seen elsewhere yet: www.heraldscotland.com/news/16997263.iain-macwhirter-transgender-rights-great-but-dont-tell-women-what-makes-a-woman-they-were-born-that-way

Many trans people and TRAs genuinely believe that it's hateful to privilege sex over gender. Even if you do nothing violent or cruel, nothing else hateful, that's enough. Continuing to refer to trans women as 'men' or 'male' or to point out that they've enjoyed socialisation as males or the benefits of testosterone, or that they retain their male genitalia - all these are seen as hateful and toxic because they focus on the body and its biology and not the soulful essence of femininity or whatever ineffable quality it is that makes some people women or girls. (And which so many of us women manifestly fail to recognise in ourselves.)

Focus on sex and biology denies who they believe they are, which is why they talk about gender critical women as Nazis presenting them with an existential threat. And our failure to recognise that, as far as they're concerned, legitimates all the retaliation. It's a little bit like - and I apologise for the analogy - the abortion debate, irreconcilable as it is between those who consider it a woman's right to have self-determination over her own body and those who regard the destruction of a foetus as murder.

I really don't know how we can move on from here.

By continually pointing out that all that is absolutely insane?

You can't have the idea that words legitimise violent retaliation in a civil society. You can't really have the idea that violence is legitimate in a civil society. These are touchstone bases of a civil society. Otherwise we don't have a civil society, we have a society ruled by violence.

Many trans people and TRAs genuinely believe that it's hateful to privilege sex over gender.

So according to them, biology itself is hateful. In order not to privilege sex over gender, we have to deny the existence of biological fact, the way all of us came to be alive. Gender is an indefinable essence that some people say they have. It has no objective existence and cannot be objectively observed.

If we allow gender to be more important than sex, we are in the territory of superstition and fundamentalist religion. This is not comparable to the abortion debate, it is more like Galileo's arguments with the church or homeopathy versus modern medicine.

You can't have the idea that words legitimise violent retaliation in a civil society.
No, of course you can't. And I did say as far as they are concerned it legitimised their violence, meaning that's what they think. (Not what everyone else should think! We all know the value some people are placing on their own internal perceptions.) Only today I saw a meme from a TRA which ran along the lines of:
Me three years ago: violence doesn't work, we need to appeal to our enemies' humanity.
Me now: if you break a Nazi's arm he has 50% less arms to do Nazi stuff with.

Anyone who's been on social media looking at militant trans stuff will have seen posts like that, or worse. Of course a lot of it is just hyperbole, but it's still pretty unpleasant. Not, apparently, as bad as 'literal' violence (sc violence arising from the use of language - a nice academic twisting of meanings there).

Sometimes it seems the most we can hope for is less violence*, and even that looks unrealistic.

*Of course, I mean less physical violence

More use of 'toxic' here. But watch this - this is a good clip in defence of Janice Turner

twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1053406945003036672