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

@Sexnotgender
They claim not , but are asking for sponsors , not because they want paid obviously and don't expect either julie or helen , both of which are supposedly now debating, but because security , bandwidth ? And cameras

@RepentMotherfucker

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

Yeah, I thought it nailed the argument entirely 😁

@yestheyhavethesamedad

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

Well the audience is only going to be gender critical women, if none of their allies want to support Grace.

so be prepared for safety concerns being one of the reasons it fails

Without a doubt.

@yestheyhavethesamedad

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

Such ridiculous dishonesty. I really despise the sleight of hand here that takes an actual issue (male violence) that women and trans people fear, and makes it women’s fault.

Absolute piffle.

No trans person would be in the slightest danger from a gathering of GC women, unless perhaps they were gluten intolerant, because a lot of our get togethers are very cake oriented.

I really can’t abide cowardice and dishonesty combined like this. Nobody here, or in any other GC space wants trans people eradicated. As always though, it’s no skin off my nose if GL’s supporters want to make themselves look silly, they can have at it

Sooner or later, positions that people won’t defend just crumble away.

Sooner or later, positions that people won’t defend just crumble away.

Evidence of some on-going inter-TRA squabbling about some of the more ridiculous safety claims:

twitter.com/AlteredSquid/status/1457716586312241166

"Sex is so complex that hardly anyone understands what it really is" is similar to "Gravity is so complex that hardly anyone understands what it really is". Some of the greatest scientific minds have been trying to develop a complete understanding of gravity and they deeper they go the more complex it becomes. It's possible that a complete understanding of gravity will never be reached.

So how is it that every human being on Earth manages to operate within a gravitational well? To do so mostly without even thinking? Even babies? It's because the deep fundamental nature of gravity is irrelevant to people at large dealing with it. This is how sex works in society. Unless playing some identity game, people are attracted to those of the relevant sex(es) and for those who want a family everyone knows you need the cooperation of one person of each of the two sexes.

Which bring me to why I think a debate of this kind is largely pointless. To work it would require an agreement at the start of the debate of definitions of the key terms: sex, gender, gender identity, trans, transsexual, gender reassignment surgery, intersex etc, and a commitment that the arguments presented would be consistent with those definitions.

If each side is using different definitions for the same terms, the argument will end up bogged down in mutual incomprehension.

Which bring me to why I think a debate of this kind is largely pointless. To work it would require an agreement at the start of the debate of definitions of the key terms: sex, gender, gender identity, trans, transsexual, gender reassignment surgery, intersex etc, and a commitment that the arguments presented would be consistent with those definitions.

If each side is using different definitions for the same terms, the argument will end up bogged down in mutual incomprehension.

Totally agree that mutual agreement on various key terms beforehand would be very useful, so I'd be surprised if Lavery agreed to that.
What I expect Lavery to do in the event this actually happens, is to try to make what are actually simple and obvious things seem complex and incomprehensible.

It's the only route a genderist can take once they've left the path of No Debate, isn't it?
I think whoever debates a genderist should keep trying to keep it simple and straightforward rather than get sucked into all the mud and murk the genderist will be trying to stir up, so that any reasonable listener can easily discern who is being sensible and who is trying to throw sand in everyone's ears....

Thank you , Toofer.

(off topic, but, interesting side chat!)

I'm not Jewish and not from an area with a synagogue so I'm pretty ignorant. I've been googling and it sounds to me like it's based in gratitude.

A man living 2500 years ago would have seen the suffering being female can bring to your life. It's bad enough now with ponstan and contraception and emergency c-sections and maternity leave - but at that time, yes, who'd not give thanks for being male?

[quote NecessaryScene]Sooner or later, positions that people won’t defend just crumble away.

Evidence of some on-going inter-TRA squabbling about some of the more ridiculous safety claims:

twitter.com/AlteredSquid/status/1457716586312241166[/quote]
The original tweet has been deleted, was it magnificently deranged?

I don't suppose anybody screenshot it did they?

Not just the tweet, the whole account has gone.

It looks like they deactivated.

@LangificusClegasaurous

Which bring me to why I think a debate of this kind is largely pointless. To work it would require an agreement at the start of the debate of definitions of the key terms: sex, gender, gender identity, trans, transsexual, gender reassignment surgery, intersex etc, and a commitment that the arguments presented would be consistent with those definitions.

If each side is using different definitions for the same terms, the argument will end up bogged down in mutual incomprehension.

Totally agree that mutual agreement on various key terms beforehand would be very useful, so I'd be surprised if Lavery agreed to that.
What I expect Lavery to do in the event this actually happens, is to try to make what are actually simple and obvious things seem complex and incomprehensible.

It's the only route a genderist can take once they've left the path of No Debate, isn't it?
I think whoever debates a genderist should keep trying to keep it simple and straightforward rather than get sucked into all the mud and murk the genderist will be trying to stir up, so that any reasonable listener can easily discern who is being sensible and who is trying to throw sand in everyone's ears....

I agree with all this. The over complication of completely simple and universal accepted concepts is the way they will go.

Which is why sticking to the point is very valuable. It means that anyone watching gets exactly what you're talking about, and the other person just looks blustering.

I'm reminded of Posie's debate with Harrop. Where she kept saying, it's not that, I just think they're men. She kept calling them men. And sticking to the point. So no amount of him trying to be a smart arse made him look like one.

At the risk of exacerbating the attention addiction, is it okay if I repost this from GL to marvel at it? It’s in response to Helen announcing an events company has taken on this project and suggesting that they leave the event planning to the event planners.

Great! All I asked for was an email address, but I’m happy to do without. It might be nice to hear from someone so that I can share my schedule. I look forward to hearing from someone to discuss dates. And will pass over the claim that speakers don’t usually “do the organizing.”

a) claim? Presumably Grace has participated in and even spoken at events before.
b) what is the bizarre fixation on getting Helen Joyce’s email address? I’m glad she evidently didn’t share it.
c) the impatience! It’s Tuesday and Grace proposed this idea at 3AM on Sunday morning, and already there’s an event organiser committed. Seems like rapid progress to me.

It is downright bizarre behaviour. Is Grace having some kind of meltdown?

@nauticant

Which bring me to why I think a debate of this kind is largely pointless. To work it would require an agreement at the start of the debate of definitions of the key terms: sex, gender, gender identity, trans, transsexual, gender reassignment surgery, intersex etc, and a commitment that the arguments presented would be consistent with those definitions.

If each side is using different definitions for the same terms, the argument will end up bogged down in mutual incomprehension.

To me, that is the debate. The definition of all these words. The premise that then leads to viewing men as women.

Discussing what each person means by those words would be a fantastic debate.

I'd love to see all that clarity.

@allmywhat
They have been having a meltdown since multi woman said yes we will debate you , and they have realised they are screwed either way , don't do the debate prove themselves to be a coward , do the debate and have to argue that woman and womans safety isnt as important as validation

[quote yestheyhavethesamedad]@allmywhat
They have been having a meltdown since multi woman said yes we will debate you , and they have realised they are screwed either way , don't do the debate prove themselves to be a coward , do the debate and have to argue that woman and womans safety isnt as important as validation[/quote]
It’s quite the dilemma 😬

No trans person would be in the slightest danger from a gathering of GC women, unless perhaps they were gluten intolerant, because a lot of our get togethers are very cake oriented.

Or if they were allergic to wine.

@TinselAngel

Or if they were allergic to wine.

But some have proved they are not allergic to whine.

Well, in a surprising development Lavery has declined an invite to talk with Sal Grover from Giggle.

twitter.com/salltweets/status/1459977556195643396?s=21

Apparently Lavery is not doing ‘zoom’ at the moment .

No … of course not! The book isn’t out yet and it would be really bad publicity to be shown as unable to construct an evidenced argument rather than mock and abuse people who disagree.

What a 🐓

I was in a twitter debate with Grace this weekend actually. Is she a academic? She was utterly utterly awful. I am just a little wee dinosaur but I was running rings around her, blimey....

The Staniland question is just genius, I thought it was clunky at first but upon using it myself I am amazed. Because obviously the answer is no, male bodied people should not have the right to undress in a communal changing room with women and girls..... A lot of people are happy just to say so.

But then others don't want to say no because that would be a tacit acknowledgement that TW are not in fact W, so they dance around the houses to come up with all these workarounds - Grace's answer is that no adults at all should ever be in a changing room with kids. Why aren't they using the adults changing room?

(because there are no such things as children's and adults changing rooms)

.... and it's wrong and weird if children are being supervised in schools as they change (Grace's interpretation seemed to require teachers to be naked, though, or the idea that strange women would come in off the street and strip naked in a school changing room)....

She was adament that adults and children should change separately and also insisted that all public changing rooms had cubicles anyway that everyone preferred.

And the coupe de Grace? There should be terf only changing rooms where 'unhappy GC kids and their bigoted parents can go'..... We all said, yes please!!

I really cannot wait to see her actually debate Helen Joyce, although I reckon she will drop out before then. I really do. She's not up to it, and the likes on the tweets showed where people's alignment was....