Posie on Talk Radio this evening

[NancyDrawed]

KJK was on Talk radio yesterday (starts at 53.40 on this clip) and the host (Kevin O'Sullivan)was really pushing her on pronouns for Laurel Hubbard, which KJ was not budging on. (I was already cross with the him for repeatedly saying Transwomen and cis women leading in to the segment!)

KJK has put on Facebook that she is back on this evening - it would appear that Kevin O'Sullivan has found someone from the trans side to have a live debate with KJK (don't know who, though, or if they are an ally or a TRA or a regular TW). Also, there is not a time given on the Standing for Women page, and annoyingly, I will be out this evening, so won't be able to to listen live.

I'd not seen it mentioned here yet, but thought it might make for an interesting listen.

Interesting that he is probably just about ok with debating with men he disagrees with, but not with women. No surprises there.
I think OJ has had Claire Fox on his podcast and I can't imagine there's much they agree on. It's this particular issue that he says he''ll only discuss with trans people - or rather with trans people who agree with him, Lord knows what he makes of the transmen dissidents .

I think OJ has had Claire Fox on his podcast and I can't imagine there's much they agree on.

The thing is, Claire Fox has a set of views you can argue against. I disagree with Claire Fox about most things (though I also agree with her about a few things). It is possible to find grounds on which to have an argument.

But trans ideology is utterly incoherent, as that Quillette article we're discussing on another thread demonstrates. If you read Helen Joyce's book, it is absolutely devastating: a cool, calm, rational demolition of all the trans arguments. Owen wouldn't stand a chance in a debate with her - or with Kathleen Stock or Jane Clare Jones or indeed a dozen or so other women who are much cleverer and better-informed than he is. He would just look like a complete fool. And I suppose there's a tiny smidgeon somewhere in a dark corner of what passes for his brain that knows it.

My take on OJ is that he honestly believes he's fighting the good fight and that he's keeping a pledge he made to trans people (albeit only to the ones who agree with him). And I kind of get that, but what I don't get is how he, as a man, can believe he has any right to decide there's no conflict with women's rights. I just cannot compute that level of arrogance.

I don’t know, I can draw parallels with LOJ and Peter Tatchell. Neither of them care for women, or women’s rights. It’s easy to hide your misogyny under the banner of Trans Rights.

The last thing I saw, the Triggernometry guys had chipped in and offered to host it. Not sure how it got resolved!

That I would love to see.

A pile on, swiftly followed by cancellation, by his own followers for even giving an opponent a platform.

Yes, I agree. They wouldn't thank him for making himself look like a clueless arse for The Cause.

@Floisme

My take on OJ is that he honestly believes he's fighting the good fight and that he's keeping a pledge he made to trans people (albeit only to the ones who agree with him). And I kind of get that, but what I don't get is how he, as a man, can believe he has any right to decide there's no conflict with women's rights. I just cannot compute that level of arrogance.

I spend quite a lot of time (perhaps too much time) wondering about transactivists and whether they are sincere but stupid or whether they are dishonest and malign. There are a number who very obviously fall into the second category - those who turn out to be sexual predators, for example.

Owen, though, does seem to fall into the first category. He is so full of rage when challenged, and so often comes out with nonsense about being on the right side of history, that I think he genuinely believes it. He also seems completely not to care about charges of misogyny - whether that's because he has such a high opinion of himself that he doesn't believe he could be a misogynist, or whether he thinks misogyny doesn't really matter, I don't know.

Even allowing for the misogyny, homophobia and shrill authoritarianism of trans ideology, the most obvious objection to it is that it's really really stupid. What on earth is going through his head?

Wow! I just watched the Posie/ Tatchell debate. She has gone up in my estimation 400%. I had seen her mainly as a haranguer. She is showing herself to be much cannier. She was absolutely right to focus on her points rather than challenge Tatchell's misapprehensions and inaccuracies one by one.

But was she right not to point out that the trans/cis distinction actually begs the question under discussion? Probably. That's subtle. Too subtle for talk radio. There will be time for that elsewhere.

I've just gritted my teeth and watched the entire segment with Tatchell. He gets almost twice as much airtime as Posie and is allowed to go on and on and on where Posie is cut short. I'm so cross! And he can't pronounce 'transwomen' (plural). He says 'transwoman' throughout. Arse

@Floisme

Interesting that he is probably just about ok with debating with men he disagrees with, but not with women. No surprises there. I think OJ has had Claire Fox on his podcast and I can't imagine there's much they agree on. It's this particular issue that he says he''ll only discuss with trans people - or rather with trans people who agree with him, Lord knows what he makes of the transmen dissidents .

I would love, love LOVE him to debate Miranda Yardley. Can you imagine?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The last thing I saw, the Triggernometry guys had chipped in and offered to host it. Not sure how it got resolved!

That I would love to see.

I would prefer to see OJ debating Helen Joyce or KJK.

Watching two men debate women's rights, moderated by the Triggernometry guys would not make me happy.

I was also curious @EdgeOfACoin and went looking. I could find 13 year olds but not younger.

Thanks, @nauticant. 13 is terrible, but I worry that people will accuse KJK as lying.

Watching two men debate women's rights, moderated by the Triggernometry guys would not make me happy.
I doubt that would happen as I imagine OJ would refuse to discuss it without a trans person (one who agrees with him) present.

I too spend far more time than is warranted trying to fathom OJ's thinking. Normally I believe that, if you can understand someone's thought processes, then some kind of discussion is possible. But when he won't even accept that women have skin in this game too then I don't see any way forward. But I'm sure he's convinced that he's a righteous dude.

And apologies - I know this thread is supposed to be about Posie P and Tatchell.

@EdgeOfACoin

I was also curious @EdgeOfACoin and went looking. I could find 13 year olds but not younger.

Thanks, @nauticant. 13 is terrible, but I worry that people will accuse KJK as lying.

I haven't read Abigail Shrier's book, but people on twitter last night were saying the fact is confirmed in there.

Sorry, I derailed it with my LOJ hallucination.

Agree Posie was excellent. I think most people watching would find her very clear and sensible. I love that she just smiled and kept calm. I don't know how she was so patient!

Also this was posted.

I haven't read Abigail Shrier's book, but people on twitter last night were saying the fact is confirmed in there.

Ah, I do actually have that book. I will check in there.

"If you want breasts at a later stage you can go and get them"

What? I am utterly gobsmacked at that statement. Just shocked.

Watching two men debate women's rights, moderated by the Triggernometry guys would not make me happy.

No, that's a fair point. I got carried away with my LOJ being trounced and flouncing fantasy. I doubt he will be agreeing to it any time soon.

Kellie-Jay was very good, under challenging circumstances. It was basically a blokes' club.

Watching two men debate women's rights, moderated by the Triggernometry guys would not make me happy.

Although it would perfectly reflect the fact that TRA is a group of men deciding what a woman is.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

Watching two men debate women's rights, moderated by the Triggernometry guys would not make me happy.

Although it would perfectly reflect the fact that TRA is a group of men deciding what a woman is.

If he's agree to it, and it had to be all male (and I get the arguments against this), Tom Chivers would be a good choice.

Otherwise, I'd nominate, Baroness Nicholson, Allison Bailey, Rosa Freedman, Rosemary Auchmuty, Sonia Sodha, Pragna Patel, Sophie Scott, Alice Sullivan, Akua Reindorf, Rosie Duffield, Deb Cohen.

Other names?

@EdgeOfACoin

I haven't read Abigail Shrier's book, but people on twitter last night were saying the fact is confirmed in there.

Ah, I do actually have that book. I will check in there.

Thank you - that would be helpful.

The thing with LOJ is that he is a true believer. There aren't that many of them about, not among clever people anyway. You mostly get stupid but devoted to the cause, or outright malicious and morally questionable. Sally Hines in the first category, Tatchell in the second, imo. Well, they're probably both in both, actually.

LOJ is a clever man, but he's bought into the genderist religion wholesale, so he is forced into the cognitive dissonance position of the Evangelical Christian Physicist, who knows exactly what the science is, but is compelled to support young earth creationism by his religion. He's not stupid. But his intellect must be subordinated to the doctrine at all costs. Which is why he gets angry and blocks everyone who challenges it and refuses to address it. Because he knows he's lying to himself. I actually don't think he's one of the malicious ones. I think he's just a very foolish egotist who has backed himself into a corner.

he is forced into the cognitive dissonance position of the Evangelical Christian Physicist, who knows exactly what the science is, but is compelled to support young earth creationism by his religion.

Social psychologists like Cialdini would identify this as the downside of consistency. Once you accept an absurdity, you end up in a position where you cope with the cognitive dissonance of not defending it or doubling down.

If not here, then I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has commented that this is why people must always have a golden bridge available to help them exit from their desperate position. Without a golden bridge, they'll end up in a fight to the death because they have no other option that makes sense to them.