'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?

Have you said that you agree it's important to be kind, and as Karen Ingala Smith says - can we start being kind to women some time? That time being, like, now?

The other good Jessica Taylor link is this one. It discusses the kneejerk way in which society trains us all to prioritise male feelings, to the point that if anyone ever puts women first, it seems horrifyingly unfair. She's saying a male's desire for people to see them as a woman matters more than the reality that all males pose the same safeguarding risk and that women have a right to separate sports.

If you've tried all these and she's still at it, firstly I apologise for shoving links at you when you're already very familiar with them, and secondly I'd also give up, yes. For the record, I know a fair number of women lawyers. I don't know a single one who isn't gender critical on the down-low. One has to be down-low because when she did speak out, she found her job was at risk. She may just be acutely aware that her job is on the line in the current climate (though things are, thank God, moving at last!) and to couch her words carefully accordingly. It may be that she's saying as much as she dares, and that she feels that acknowledging any variation from the rigid orthodoxy is better than remaining silent.

It's also possible that she's very clever in a limited sphere, but just not very bright. Known a few of those in my time!

We really, really need Maya Forstater to win her appeal.

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.')

I think you need to always, always return to women. Body dysmorphia is hell, I'm sure, but what about rape survivors retraumatised by men in single sex spaces? Why is it the role of women, when trained to feel anxiety around strange men when vulnerable, to emotionally validate men - even if that retraumatises them? Where is your nuanced understanding of women's needs and fully lived emotional experience? Why are women's own complex emotions, needs and feelings not given equal validity?

Someone here said that we lose the moment we allow this to be about trans rights. It's not. I have no interest in denying trans people rights. My interest is in protecting women's rights from male attacks.

Here here, wellbehavedwomen, well said.

Like others, my first thought on reading the OP was ‘it’s an online debate, what makes you think they really are a barrister or and adult human female’?

OP, you have said you are certain so I will leave it there but I am never certain of anyone’s identity online.

'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.'

My response would be - it is more complicated and nuanced than feelings.

• You need to take into account how hellish sexual abuse is and how widespread it is and how many women it has affected. You need to be prepared to accommodate those women and girls who Have suffered and those who are fearful of having to suffer too.
• You need to take into account how strict some religions are and be prepared to accommodate believers. Not doing so will alienate the majority of people in this world (80-85%) who have a religion which may oppose the idea of changing the body given to you by a God.
• You need to take into account the visceral reaction experienced by some women when faced with a strange man wearing a dress in a place they expected to only find women such as a bathroom. I do mean visceral here - that moment when your body reacts and your brain is still processing.
• You need to take into account the history and evolution of the women’s rights movement and accommodate the people (not just women) that it has served. Victorian campaigns for public lavatories for women allowed massive social change - women could leave their own homes for much longer and travel further for the first time. There are still women (and men) who for social or religious reasons do not wish to share lavatories with the opposite sex. Should they face the restrictions of the pre-Victorian era?

I would also like to suggest that when someone disagrees with the way you present arguments rather than with the substance of the arguments, they are actually losing the argument.

Is it best to end the conversation so that she doesn't convert the other women any further into being kind?

Much as I probably hold similar views to you, I think you need to let people make up their own minds on the matter. That said, the lawyer is probably being careful because she doesn't want to find herself in hot water.

'Nuanced argument' seems to be used as a euphemism for 'an argument I agree with' now

And if you want 'nuance' presumably getting your premise correct would be rather important....

TWAW is a false premise - the argument, logically, stops right there.

Echoing what wereallsquare said, there are areas in life where “nuance” is morally repugnant and indefensible.

Apartheid, rape, abuse, for example.

Transactivism is dedicated to winning the social and legal right of males (the more powerful sex) to violate and destroy the boundaries of females (the less powerful sex). Its goal is the disenfranchisement and disempowerment of female people, a structural abuse which inevitably leads to other, more tangible forms of abuse of female people.

No person with any moral compass can legitimately support any part of that goal any more than they could legitimately support any part of apartheid, any part of rape, any part of child abuse.

Some things are clearly wrong. Breaking down the boundaries of the more vulnerable, less powerful sex is one of them. The word “nuanced” here is simply a masking term to hide the fact that she is supporting the right of the more powerful sex to impose its will on and dominate the less powerful sex.

However painful gender dysphoria must be (and yes, I am sure that it is very painful for those who actually have it, just as other distressing psychological conditions are very painful too), it is not and should never be the responsibility of women to fix it for those male people who suffer from it. As Datun said on another thread, we are not “service humans” who exist simply to mop up the distress of unhappy males (or words to that effect, apologies Datun for any inaccuracies!).

The idea that we are full human beings in our own right and entitled to pursue our own lives as fully as male people do should not be seen as something that can be compromised with “nuance”. It should be an absolute for anyone who isn’t an unashamed misogynist. There are no shades of grey here.

This woman is trying to defend the indefensible, along with every other women colluding with the male supremacist movement that is transactivism. It doesn’t reflect well on her at all.

As Datun said on another thread, we are not “service humans” who exist simply to mop up the distress of unhappy males (or words to that effect, apologies Datun for any inaccuracies!).

Yes. The demands for kindness and compromise reinforce the belief that women are supporting actresses in everybody else's lives (whoever made that observation about extending the Bechdel test from film to the rest of life).

Nuance and context are important. Beyond a certain point insistence that someone isn't grasping your nuance can feel like a faux polite way of signalling that somebody has a deficit you're trying to remedy.

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.

Ask her plainly what she means by nuanced Tell her that it seems that she means undecided, fence sitting. That she seems to say that unless women relent and give in to transgender demands they will always be in the wrong. That this seemingly intransigence on her part is unseeming for someone in her profession, that she ought to be able to see both sides without condemnation for either.

Ask her to reflect upon her decision not to support women in their right to even discuss without such condemnation the perceived encroachment of sex based laws, the EA2010. To think about why her refusal to do so is to prevent meaningful discourse and so aids in denying the view of many women an equal platform upn which to be heard.

Basically tell her to get off that fence before she splinters her arse!

Transactivism is dedicated to winning the social and legal right of males (the more powerful sex) to violate and destroy the boundaries of females (the less powerful sex). Its goal is the disenfranchisement and disempowerment of female people, a structural abuse which inevitably leads to other, more tangible forms of abuse of female people.

Sadly, this. While claiming that the males are terribly vulnerable and marginalised and dont we understand, if we say no they will kill themselves or be murdered and it will be all our fault. And that is why it's self-defence for anyone to punch a woman with these views.

The misogyny of it all is breathtaking.

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

And how about the TRAs being able to be "more flexible and nuanced, so as to be able to find some accommodation" with women, before she supports them?

Does nuanced argument apply to them or do they just have to scream "mamma, it's not fair"?

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

Well, that's her choice.

I wouldn't worry about not being able to change people's minds. It's kind of like arguing the merits of a religion - anyone who believes in something because of a faith that it's true (TWAW, the existence of god, an afterlife, etc) will not be swayed by logic. Confirmation bias will determine what they take on board and what they don't, so don't beat yourself up about it - it's the nature of her belief that's the barrier here, not your arguments.

OP, it’s good to debate these issues. If you’re debating with someone of goodwill, who hasn’t made an ideological commitment to a dogma that you oppose, each of you may learn, see different angles and perhaps change your opinions to some extent.

But if you differ on an essential point, you can only go so far, listening and thinking about the other person’s views.

The lawyer you are speaking of 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 of course has every right to support or not support it. But her insistence on nuance and flexibility has no more status than anyone else’s opinion on anything. She’s the one being inflexible there.

Most of us are flexible on some matters, not on others. I don’t mind in the least if men want to wear high heels and make-up, for example. But I do object to men using women’s single-sex facilities. Where is the room for nuance or flexibility? ”Should we let men use women’s facilities?” is a Yes-or-No question. If we start saying “OK, but only this sort of man” the next step has to be “and that sort of man ...” and then all men.

So, nuance is irrelevant to a Yes/No question. The lawyer wants us to make accommodation for “some transgender people”. (We already do, as transmen are welcome — but I presume she means men.)

Let’s look at another request. Suppose you ask me to hand over my wallet. If you’re pointing a gun at me, I will do so. If not, I will refuse. Should I be flexible and maybe meet you halfway? Give you half my money? Or try to negotiate to keep more than half? Once I’ve agreed you can take some, I’m going to lose it all unless you kindly leave me a bit so you look nice!

To attack your arguments for not being ‘nuanced’ is a distraction. It’s irrelevant to the accuracy (or lack of it) of the points you are making. Your argument or point could be un-nuanced and right (an example of this type of argument would be ‘rape is wrong’ or ‘2 and 2 is 4’’). Or it could be nuanced and completely wrong (for instance ‘in some cases, rape may be right’ or ‘let’s be open to the possibility that 2 and 2 may equal 17’).

It’s a version of the ad hominem attack - she is attacking the tone of your argument, and by extension your personality (unnuanced! shrill! a harridan!) rather than the specifics.

This suggests to me she’s not worth debating and I wouldn’t continue a public discussion with her. She’s not in good faith.

Plus, don’t let people blind you with their specialist knowledge of the law. Law can be changed! That’s the whole reason we have Parliament. That’s its job.

The question of what the law is, is relevant to some degree - much more important is what the law should be, and what changes may be needed to it.

Bottom line, if you’re a 13 year old girl having to get changed for swimming in front of some middle aged bloke in the pool changing room, that won’t feel very nuanced either. It’ll just feel gross and humiliating. This woman clearly doesn’t give a toss about that.

However painful gender dysphoria must be (and yes, I am sure that it is very painful for those who actually have it, just as other distressing psychological conditions are very painful too), it is not and should never be the responsibility of women to fix it for those male people who suffer from it. As Datun said on another thread, we are not “service humans” who exist simply to mop up the distress of unhappy males (or words to that effect, apologies Datun for any inaccuracies!).

The idea that we are full human beings in our own right and entitled to pursue our own lives as fully as male people do should not be seen as something that can be compromised with “nuance”. It should be an absolute for anyone who isn’t an unashamed misogynist. There are no shades of grey here.

This is brilliant.