A Guide to Disagreeing Better

[Cwenthryth]

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07y3d18

Just listening to this podcast (part of the BBC ‘Seriously....’ series) and thought I’d share here as whilst it’s not directly about feminism I think it’s incredibly pertinent to the discussions we have around gender identity/stereotypes, sex self-ID and women’s rights, especially with recent twitter storms etc. I heard Douglas Alexander interviewed about it the other day and the parts that caught my attention were (paraphrasing from memory): “no one was ever insulted into changing their mind”, “don’t presume to know other people’s motivation” and “don’t necessarily look for compromise - look for common ground”. Also a concept of “radical honesty” - listening intently and speaking truthfully, and that mere civility is not useful (if someone described their relationship with a spouse as ‘civil’, it’s not exactly a good thing!)

I realise on this forum this is a little preaching to the choir for many, but I’m finding it a good listen and probably a good topic for discussion as well :-)

So I finished listening and had time to write my thoughts on his conclusions wrt to feminism and the gender/self ID situation.

He came to 4 final points:

1. Aim for empathy, by really listening. Be open to seeing each other in all our shared and nuanced humanity.

Hands up, I could work harder on this at times - it is really difficult to remain empathetic in the face of accusations of hatred, bigotry etc for having a different opinion, understanding or experience to someone else. I think it’s natural to feel defensive and reactive when faced with this and challenging to see the humanity in people who seem, to my eyes, to be behaving incredibly selfishly and divisively, and upholding misogyny against me and my fellow women. But I guess this is a case of “be the change you want to see in the world” - I want the biology-deniers and stereotype-upholders to listen to our feminist point of view and empathise with how we feel, so I should extend that courtesy and listen to them as well. I feel I try to - the problem being that, on almost every occasion I’ve ever seen on MN or Twitter when TRA-types have been asked to speak or explain, they refuse, claiming hatred etc. So how can I listen, if people don’t want to speak to me because of my beliefs?

2. Speak truthfully, really truthfully. Civility is fine, but fierce honesty is a stronger foundation.

Good, done I don’t think anyone can accuse feminists of not speaking the truth fiercely and honestly. At least - when we are able to. Even here, we are restricted in how we are able to describe people or situations, we are obliged to use “preferred pronouns” which can be directly at odds with speaking truthfully. In order to engage with those we disagree with, we have to speak untruthfully. At least on MN there is some equivalence in that I am also not obliged to accept being referred to by terms I also object to - although, personally, I don’t feel insulted as such by being called ‘cis’ for example - it’s simply incorrect, and I would say so, I don’t require the person who calls me ‘cis’ to be censored, I’d rather discuss things with them more openly rather than everyone constantly self-censoring.

This also comes into conflict with the next point - when it comes to fundamental beliefs around sex and gender, my truth (which obviously I would argue is the truth, objective biological fact) is interpreted as insulting by those who hold to a self-ID/gender=sex paradigm, so how can I both speak truthfully, and not insult people, if they are insulted by the truth?

3. Don’t assume you know someone else’s motives. Contempt is a killer, and a dead end. No one has ever been insulted into agreement.

No one has ever been insulted into agreement - bang on. I guess the nuance to explore here is, is the insult in the intent or the interpretation? If I say a transwoman is a man, is that not an insult because I do not intend it to be (I do not hold ‘man’ to be a pejorative term, it is said as a neutral statement of biological reality), or is it an insult because someone else deems it to be ‘invalidating an identity’ or upsetting someone who was born male but now ‘identifies as a woman’? In most other contexts, I would think the insult is in the receipt/interpretation not the intent - you can be unintentionally insulting - but, if someone is insulted by the truth, or reality? How do you manage that?

4. Don’t aim for the middle ground. Splitting the difference isn’t the answer when you fundamentally disagree. Instead, work hard to find the common ground, experiences, passions, hopes, that you nonetheless share.

This is something I am always learning and have come a long way with since discovering feminism. Disagreement is a fact of life; another term for middle ground might be no-man’s land - no one is at home or best served there. I’m more than happy to find common ground with people I have very different opinions from. But common ground can’t only be found by one ‘side’ - both need to be working to find this. Whilst one camp persists in assuming the other’s motivations, slinging insults, not listening, and not being honest - how are we ever going to find common ground.

Thanks - have earmarked it for listening to tomorrow.

This was good today: "The Misinformation Virus "
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000c9sm

Yes, I think these are all good advice. And it's true you can't make other people take it, but IME when you do these things others may follow you in their behaviour. Whereas if you don't, you never win in any case, and nothing comes of the discussion. So you might as well do them consistently .

A few thoughts: re honesty. Sometimes the most difficult part is being honest with ourselves, and reflecting carefully on our own motivations. It's not always easy to do this, and it can require taking a step back from an emotional reaction. Most people have mixed motivations a lot of the time and it can be difficult to wade through that.

Assuming others motives - I think that might be the one I see happen most often on these boards and online generally. Someone says something and people assume it is because x, y, or z, or they mean something specific, and often quite horrible. It is particularly common where there are these soundbite arguments that get trotted out time and time again, often applied when they don't make sense, like an automatic reaction to a particular sequence of words.

Asking for clarification is underused in such instances. Just, what do you mean by x, or am I correct in thinking you mean y, can go a long way, rather than assuming someone means something terrible when they don't. At which point you have made them far less likely to ever listen again.

Good summary, Cwenfryth.

I think point 4 is the key one. It’s how my marriage works wrt political differences. We both have a strong interest in advancing human wellbeing and dignity. Although we disagree on how this should be realised, there’s a common underlying value, which I think we’d struggle to get on well without.

Goosefoot - one thing I’ve found helpful & that relates to what you’re saying is the ‘principle of charity’ used by philosophers. You try to express the best possible version of your opponent’s argument, with their agreement and clarification, and then critique that. Avoids time-consuming strawmanning and misunderstandings, and you’re inherently treating your opponent with respect.

I’m not sure what you do where the other side is offended by/doesn’t believe in material reality. It seems that, they won’t budge, and won’t give a decent philosophical argument for why they mistrust empirical data in all cases (not just this special one), you have to go into the faith based sphere with them, or just decide not to talk to them about the topic.

This is a really good idea for a thread. I wish I could argue better

This is great advice, thank you.