'Nuanced' discussion: dangerous?

[thatdamnwoman]

I've been involved in a long on-line conversation (lasting weeks) on an obscure public messageboard with a lawyer with more than 30 years experience who is very careful not to deny what she would call the 'potential' conflict of transgender and women's rights but seems to me to play them down. She is one of those cerebral women with a barrister's training who regards a lot of the material I link to from here as slightly hysterical and not necessarily reliable. She doesn't deny or refute it, just sees it as marginal to legal rights issues.

She seems to place a lot of emphasis on recognising and acknowledging the feelings of transgender people, while also showing due concern for the rights of women. She hasn't disclosed whether she has trans friends or family but I do wonder. Her constant carefully-worded criticism of me and my argument is that I lack nuance. She has taken the position that until the radical feminist position is able to be more flexible and nuanced, so as to be able to find some accommodation for some transgender people she cannot support it.

She isn't presenting as a trans supporter – and she acknowledges the issues involved – but her bottom line is that she/ we are a bit hysterical (not that she would use that word) and using a sledgehammer when we need tweezers and a magnifying glass.

We've been debating on a public messageboard and I've noticed that a number of other women who used to be close to my position have begun to back off and talk about how perhaps 'we' need to be a bit more understanding and 'give' a bit.

Has anyone else encountered this? I know someone who knows the woman concerned and I know she is who she says she is. I have no sense that she's actually supporting the transactivist viewpoint, but her underlying message, even if it's couched in legalese is 'we have to be kind'.

Is it best to end the conversation so that she doesn't convert the other women any further into being kind? How does one stand against 'be kind' when it's couched as showing nuance and flexibility and seeing the issue from all sides?

It's also possible this person is just in the group to do some sea-lioning, or whatever the technical term is.

I think you have got it in your last paragraph and would send something like that to her and then sign off.

Barracker, I know who she is and she is female and the mother of adult daughters.

Thanks to all who've helped me get a grip on the situation. In answer to someone who's asked why do I care, I care because I'm pro-women and GC.

Why does one side have to be “nuanced” and “accommodating” but not both? Also being kind is not synonymous with agreement. One can be kind to someone and yet still disagree.

Also I’m guessing this barrister is more involved in criminal law than civil?

She would say that she is nuanced and I am not and the reason we can't agree is because I'm not nuanced.

It's like I'm arguing in splashy primary colours ('Woman= adult human female/ transwomen aren't women') and she's all tasteful pastels and subtle shades ('It's more complicated and nuanced than that and you need to take into account how hellish body dysmorphia can be and be prepared to accommodate some sufferers.')

Even from a GC perspective, there are different possibilities and disagreements about political and legal solutions. People have different ideas about how to think about different situations, medical or otherwise. People have different views about causes of gender identity problems.

It's difficult to know without knowing the substance of your disagreement, but it sounds a bit as if you are presenting one position as the GC or radfem position. If so, that might be what's bothering the person you are talking to.

Try some "I'm sure gender dysphoria is very unpleasant, but why should that mean women have to give up their single sex spaces to males? "

Basically, you acknowledge the possibility that the (usually unrelated) claim may be true, but then you go straight back to your original point or question.

People can choose to use a less safe space if they want and prefer. The important thing is they don't feel they have to.

In any case, any third space suggestions I have seen, (other than family change rooms which are meant for families and to solve a different problem), is self-contained.

So it's basically an argument about how you're arguing, rather than actually arguing the matter in hand?

A common technique...

Have you found you're talking less and less about the actual facts of the debate itself?

She hasn’t as far as I have seen actually formally laid out a position. All she’s done is said “I can’t stand with gc feminists” which of course means by implication she stands with trans activists without such requirements re: nuance/kindness.

In a way she’s paying you a compliment in that she knows actually arguing her position would mean you’d trounce her in terms of evidence based principled discussion. All she is actually doing is acting like a frightened squid dumping the obscuring ink of sophistry in an attempt to confuse anyone who might be watching. It’s pretty low hanging fruit intellectually speaking. Please don’t be intimidated by her.

In a way she’s paying you a compliment in that she knows actually arguing her position would mean you’d trounce her in terms of evidence based principled discussion.

Well thank you – but I think you over-estimate my powers of argument! I'm off to the theatre this evening so this will have to be my last post. Thanks for helping me think it through.

I think my interlocutor would probably say that she's finding her way to a position. It's weird that discussing/ arguing with someone who doesn't hold a fixed opinion is more unsettling than arguing with someone who does.

The requirement for 'nuance' seems intended to complicate and cloud

I would avoid assuming her intentions here as it's clear from this thread that there are many possible reasons she's holding onto her view.

I think, generally, the most compelling reason that allows people to defy logic is when they know someone lovely who's trans, so the logical arguments seem like a personal attack on poor Katie (or whoever). So my money's on that theory (combined with likely stonewall influence).

I've been on threads in the past on MN where people have said things to me like 'I see what you're doing', the implication being that I'm in league with TRAs, if I ask any question that challenges the GC position. It instantly disengages the accused from the debate if the assumption is wrong as it makes the accuser look paranoid in thinking the accused is part of the conspiracy, when they were merely playing devil's advocate or exploring their own thinking.

So while I agree that the requirement for nuance when voiced by TRAs and others with skin in the game has the intention of muddying the waters, I'd be wary of suggesting that intention is present when someone else has adopted this language as they probably don't appreciate its original intent.

Can she give examples of nuance & flexibility from the trans ideology side? So you can see what kind of thing she means?

The only "nuances" that I think will eventually have to be discussed is whether

1. post-op transsexuals should continue to have access to women's spaces or not. I vote not, though I have become very fond of some GC transsexuals online.

2. The GRA should be abolished and I am convinced it should be.

My best friend in uni had a mother who encouraged her to take a more "nuanced" view of apartheid, to stop protesting. My friend was gobsmacked and really ashamed.

As a student in France, my female professor offered a "nuanced" view of a rape in a novel we read. Ashamed to say I swallowed that garbage at the time.

It seems you have some kind of respect for that woman encouraging "nuance" about the definition of a woman. I do not see the room for nuance. There is nothing esoteric about that simple definition.

Can you ask her what exactly her nuances are? As you said, it seems to mean 'women compromise', so maybe you could then tell her that and ask her in what way TW are expected to 'compromise' (movement required by both sides, isn't it). If there's no movement on their side then it's no compromise, it's just more commands to women.

Just I'm not sure if you are being obtuse here but you seem to be missing the point that if there's a third option ostensibly for those who don't 'identify' with their sex

And I'm not sure that you are not just being wilfully obstructive.

the situation is such that one also has to appear to be reasonable...and show some concern for the 'opposing' party. To my mind the best way to cater to all needs ( in a 'reasonable' way) is to suggest and promote third spaces.

In my mind strategic thinking is required, as well as simple intransigence and 'holding the line'. This solution permits both parties, in theory, anyway, to reach a reasonable solution.

Firstly, people defaulting to her is not surprising. Many people would rather be kind, because saying no is uncomfortable, seeing this danger is scary. It's natural they'd want to default to trusting a smart person telling them to rest in the safety of the sweet sweet status quo.

Secondly, don't be intimidated. You can use your relative naivety. Keep asking questions that bring it back to actual, concrete examples. "Sorry, I don't understand, what is your actual proposed solution for protecting female prisoners?" This also has the effect of making space for lurkers to feel safe even having those sinful doubtful thoughts.

Thirdly, she's not being 'smart' she's being sneaky. She's sounding smart while not actually proposing anything helpful or substantial, just criticizing those who are That's easy and cowardly.

Fourthly, it's not radfems who don't want debate. Don't let this slippery reframe through. Radfems have been begging to discuss this for, oh, a decade or so? They lost a lot doing so. The only reason she is being forced to not-substantially discuss it now is because radfems wouldn't let up and be nice.

Fifthly - everything Barracker said!

And thank you, thatdamnwoman for speaking out!

She sounds annoying. Her repeated calls for ‘nuance’ are just ‘No, you are!’ for grownups.

Nuance is not necessarily better. There is no nuance in the earth is round. There is no nuance in maths or science. There is no nuance in biological sex.

You can’t argue with stupid and barristers are really not necessarily all that bright (v close to one and she is indeed quite clever but not as clever as many women on here and she wouldn’t survive in my working environment either so don’t be swayed by her status)

The previous position was pretty nuanced ie before 2015 or whenever self ID was first mooted

It's the job of lawyers to say on the one hand this and the other that. It is the users of laws who make the decision on the risk of which hand they will accept. She's so used to selling the options she can't make a judgement so frankly she is not worth listening to anymore, you should listen to your own judgment on the risks, just as all her clients have done through her entire career. It's literally never been her decision, people have simply paid her to present opinions and enact the clients chosen one.

Just I'm not sure if you are being obtuse here but you seem to be missing the point that if there's a third option ostensibly for those who don't 'identify' with their sex, that women and girls may choose it too, based on their identity

The goal is, surely, the retention of single sex spaces, services and sports for those that want, need & require them; and the retention of sex as a protected category in law - not the utter capitulation and nose rubbing of the 'opposition'.

None of us here believes in transgender ideology...but that is another front line - especially, of course, as it causes potential harm and confusion for our children and grandchildren. I believe, though, it will recede with time; that it is largely a social and cultural fad ( certainly in its more recent guise). Obviously it needs to be be continually questioned and critiqued in order to hasten that decline.

But given the stakes and the virulence of the ideology and its institutional capture - we need to play the game to some extent - whilst not giving way on the essentials.