Does anyone believe this debate will go ahead ?

[yestheyhavethesamedad]

Grace lavery at 2am sunday morning put out a post asking british feminists for a debate , when they are in the uk in march , about 3 minutes later claimed people were too scared to debate 🙄
Helen Joyce, Julie Bindle and a few more woman have said yes ,grace is now saying no one has confirmed and that they are backing out.
So does anyone thing this will actually go ahead and want to place bets on the excuses why suddenly it cannot go ahead , backpeddling already started , ie: no one is organising ect

There is about 4 or 5 years difference between them. 'Teacher' is loosely applied like many fantasy labels I feel. Like being a 'kid' at the time Andrew Doyle was a teaching.

Are we sure that meant taught by Doyle at school? They were both at Wadham so Doyle could have taught undergraduate Lavery there while doing his PhD - the ages would fit.

Yes I imagine that would be it.

@Rightsraptor

I had no idea Lavery is English. Now I'm going to have to revisit my previous 'nutty Californian' belief.

Lavery seems to think that because sex was not clearly defined in previous times this means it was open and fluid. It is only now that woman = adult human female. What Lavery does not appear to consider (if have not heard the entire podcast yet) is that sex was always considered so blindingly obvious it did not need a definition.

Yeah, I've heard that before. And, apologies, this is going to be Christian and Europe centred, because that's the history I know, but if 'sex was not clearly defined' then why:

• Did St Paul write, "In Christ there is no male or female"
• Did and do Jewish men give thanks for "not making me a woman"
• Did St Basil found seperate monasteries for men and women
• Did St Francis encourage male recruits to give up everything and travel continuously on foot, whilst initially refusing female recruits at all, and then requiring them to be cloistered in convents
• Have 100% of Popes been male
• Have consistently the first born male child, and not the first born child, inherited their father's estate
• Did St Augustine of Hippo write about the suffering of women, seen as direct heirs of the sin of Eve, and argued that her reproductive organs must be "freed from corruption" before she could enter heaven
• Did Galen argue that women were colder and more phlegmatic in their humoral makeup than men.
• Was it accepted belief that sperm from the right testicle made boys, and from the left girls.
• Did medieval medical authorities, based on the teaching of Aristotle, believe that male foetusus got their soul 40 days post conception, whilst females had to wait til 80 days, who were morally and spiritually inferior as a result.

Were the biological understandings of man and woman different? Sure. But even a cursory reading of religious, medical and legal texts illustrates that, at least in the west, there was a very clear definition of 'man' and 'woman' from pre-Christian times to the present day.

Lavery is a twit who doesn't know their history.

@Thehumblesnail

Midsomer, I never said that Grace would have 'wipe the floor debate winning points'. Just that Grace would be an effective advocate as far as the strengths/weaknesses inherent in the TRA argument will allow. Some people upthread seemed to think Grace is an idiot. I've read Grace's academic work and know that isn't true.

Refuting bad-faith arguments and subtle misrepresentations of data/positions is much more difficult in a real-life debate than it is in writing, even on Twitter, because you have no time to compose your arguments, or check facts, or look back at quotes and consider them in context.

Given that someone as stupid as Donald Trump managed to do ok in debates in against Hillary Clinton (mostly because SO MUCH of what he said was bullshit that there was little either the moderator or Hillary could do by way of refutation until after the event, by which time people had stopped paying attention) I suspect that the floor won't be wiped with either party here. As Datun says, Grace has to argue for some batshit propositions, but I think Grace will no doubt find a way to make them sound as plausible as they can be made to sound through elision, and obfuscation, and rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

I'm reminded of earlier days, when Jane Fae used to come across as reasonable and articulate, simply because Jane was used speaking in public and the women trying to get their points across were intimidated.

It was only when people started digging into Jane Fae's background and uncovered the murky extreme porn advocacy that they stopped using Jane as a spokesperson.

It isn't just about the arguments, it's about the presentation of those arguments and that's why Posie Parker did so well against Adrian Harrop.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel

I am assuming it had to be at Uni. Hence why I also question Lavery's use of 'kid with a crush'.

Motorina

Jewish men give thanks for not being a woman?

My theological knowledge is poor, but google sent me this www.huffpost.com/entry/should-i-thank-god-for-not-making-me-a-woman_b_3197422 - very interesting, I had never heard of that so thank you.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria yeah, it's part of the Talmud, which dates from 200-500 CE. Which certainly suggests that, 1500 years ago, that community had a pretty firm grasp that we are a sexually dimorphic species. TRAs may want to claim that male and female are modern concepst, but even a cursory knowledge reveals that to be, uhhhh, implausible.

Lavery is a twit who doesn't know their history.

Indeed - and could do with a full reading list of the Greeks on biological sex, the Bible as well as the Talmud, medieval Christian and Islamic thought and a full course of early modern anatomy as I mentioned upthread.

Absolutely daft to believe sex wasn’t defined. It’s one topic that’s been an absolute perennial obsession of almost all philosophies, major religions, folklore and the natural sciences for millennia.

I wouldn’t take a public school and Oxbridge education as evidence of a necessarily clever mind. Plenty of people have that and remain surface thinkers - often wily or crafty, but that isn’t real thought. Who thinks Boris Johnson is a deep intellect, for example? Or David Cameron?

I’m more distracted by reading the background info mentioned briefly upthread about Lavery and Ortberg. The social media posts/pics are really… well. I had wondered what happened to Ortberg some time ago, but am a bit…surprised.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
I think it consisted of having post set to only followers able to reply , then oh not not that statio/show/podcast /house/conference hall ect as they are right wing and anti feminist , then ended with not doing the debate as the people replying are not doing so in good faith ,
In other words they used it to argue gc feminists are cowards then bottled it when people said yes 🤷‍♀️

@Thehumblesnail

Midsomer, I never said that Grace would have 'wipe the floor debate winning points'. Just that Grace would be an effective advocate as far as the strengths/weaknesses inherent in the TRA argument will allow. Some people upthread seemed to think Grace is an idiot. I've read Grace's academic work and know that isn't true.

Refuting bad-faith arguments and subtle misrepresentations of data/positions is much more difficult in a real-life debate than it is in writing, even on Twitter, because you have no time to compose your arguments, or check facts, or look back at quotes and consider them in context.

Given that someone as stupid as Donald Trump managed to do ok in debates in against Hillary Clinton (mostly because SO MUCH of what he said was bullshit that there was little either the moderator or Hillary could do by way of refutation until after the event, by which time people had stopped paying attention) I suspect that the floor won't be wiped with either party here. As Datun says, Grace has to argue for some batshit propositions, but I think Grace will no doubt find a way to make them sound as plausible as they can be made to sound through elision, and obfuscation, and rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

I certainly agree that it's much harder to debate in real life than it is in writing. You can choose your words when you are writing, and you can check your facts before you speak.

Also, things like having the right tone of voice, a decent way of articulating what you want to say, keeping calm, etc, all can give the impression of credibility, or not.

But if anyone is going to debate someone who isn't just a complete numpty, then presumably they will be well prepared.

For me it would have to be twofold. Knowing the bogus facts that get presented, and being able to refute them.

And knowing that no, you're not a service human, and you have every right to privacy, irrespective of the argument.

But, as I said, at the end of the day, it's all sunlight. And that's the only thing one needs.

You can argue till the cows come home, on an academic level, using sources, about how people didn't acknowledge biological sex in the past, so mixed sex prisons please, but people will still think you're an entitled, self serving wanker.

Well, it's all useful sunlight, yep. Maybe Lavery could go on Lorraine for some serious debate.

Is it too late to organise a 'Datun for MN' campaign and get her to do it?

It was the martinis that did it for me...

RoyalCorgi
I think the next time one of our dear friends starts with their nonsense I’ll just reply “MONORAIL MONORAIL MONORAIL!”

My goodness, I think Helen Joyce will be fantastic because she knows her data and how to interpret it.

But also, this bewilders me 'sex is a modern cobceot' bull - the human race is very good at making babies, and knowing which humans grow babies.

Royal families have always been very good at knowing which of their royal babies to marry to other royal babies to make more royal babies.

Peasents in the field have always known which people need to grow and suckle babies.

How do these history and biology deniers actually explain that.

So what is it that makes Grace Laverty a woman. If I don't have whatever it is, am I not a woman any more? Does that mean there will be a meaning of the word 'wonan' that actually excludes women who don't share this characteristic with grace? Therefore, you need to be really explicit what it is when talking about laws and protections. So I would start there....

When people say that sex was not historically defined in terms of chromosomes and was therefore fluid... how do they think cats or cows or goldfish manage to procreate? Are they just running around shagging anything, waiting to evolve into consciousness so they can comprehend genetics and finally, FINALLY manage to figure out what male and female are?

Well, absolutely, Boogaloo.

And I have, as many here, had interesting online discussions with people on this subject and as soon as you point out things such as our excellent points, above, they start saying that you are in bed with right wing fundamentalists, you have been indoctrinated by TERF bigots so you are blind to the science, you are trying to kill trans people, you are denying them rights, you are stupid, you are a pervert....

Yes, great on twitter my friend. Not sure Helen Joyce will be taken down so easily in a live debate.....

Grace Lavery. What a massive, massive knob. That is all.

An example of one of my recent twitter exchanges -

Them - 'K stock said being trans was a fiction - So let me ask you how acceptable would it be if K.Stock told the world that Gay is a 'Fiction'? Riots? Immediately sacked? Attacked by news media? Ostracized from all Unis ?'

My reply (over several tweets)' Someone claiming homosexuality was a fiction would not get a lot of support, but as homosexuality manifests itself by people being attracted to and setting up lives with people of the same sex and this is a common place and highly visible occurrence, it would also be a very difficult position to prove.
The rights of anyone to love or be attracted to someone of the same sex do not in any way impact on the rights of people to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex so the only objection would be one of moral outrage.

That is an unacceptable position both politically and personally these days.'

And their response to my reply -' Ah so you won't answer the question u just squirm n wriggle away from it bcos 2 answer it would see your entire GC worldview smash into pieces.'

These rather weak techniques of suppressing a proper debate will butter no parsnips with Helen. Or the moderator. Or the audience. So they will have to resort to letting their arguments fall and stand on their own merits.

If only I was a betting woman....

Classic and standard male priveledge - let the woman organise everything.

If anyone is interested gl , now has someone on their twitter page telling them , that the audience will be all gc woman as transpeople will not be safe , as gc woman want them eradicated , and thats the ONLY reason no transpeople will be present , and gl is agreeing with them whilst saying they def want to debate , so be prepared for safety concerns being one of the reasons it fails

Off topic, but just to say not all Jewish men say this, just a small number of very religious ones.

Yes Judaism has its sexist bits, but not all Jews follow it.

For the record, the equivalent female prayer says, 'Thank you for making me the way I am'.

@toofer

Off topic, but just to say not all Jewish men say this, just a small number of very religious ones.

Yes Judaism has its sexist bits, but not all Jews follow it.

For the record, the equivalent female prayer says, 'Thank you for making me the way I am'.

That was in response to Motorina upthread, sorry!

Is there some back pedalling going on?