Prospect Magazine: Kathleen Stock v Robin Moira White

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Great discussion.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/gender-wars-two-opposing-perspectives-on-the-trans-and-womens-rights-debate

Gender wars: two opposing perspectives on the trans and women’s rights debate
A lawyer and philosopher respond to seven propositions—ranging from single-sex spaces to puberty blockers for children

What about the drop in IQ points and being forever reliant on drugs? Would that be recommended as a basis from which to seek education and training for a professional career?

And apologies for using 'lady' rather than 'woman'. Menopause lady brain

@RepentMotherfucker

Why would you engage just to not engage?

Weird.

I think as far as I can see, that RMW was asked to respond to a series of questions that were put with someone else's answers. RMW didn't know that this was going to happen hence withdrawing from the 'debate'.

Almost like a response diaspora, with the responses being somewhere they shouldn't be (ie next to some very sensible responses). RMW thought that they were the only person being asked these questions.

Well that is what I take from the Twitter comments by RMW anyway.

Surely everyone's responses would stand on their own merits?

That's interesting Shedmistress. Although I'm surprised that Robin would be bothered about someone else also responding to the questions and then the answers being compared. Personally if I was convinced that my personal response was accurate and fair, then it wouldn't bother me in the slightest that it was compared to what someone else might say.

Have these questions caused you to reflect and reconsider some aspects of your beliefs Robin?

One would like so Eresh.

I would be interested to know what changes Robin would have made to their answers if they knew that Dr Stock was also answering the same questions.

Because if the answers given already needed changing? Why? Or were the answers given tailored to a certain audience?

I think being seen as debating with anyone not on the TR'A' list is the issue.

TR'A' list

Almost like a response diaspora, with the responses being somewhere they shouldn't be (ie next to some very sensible responses).

Almost like a response diaspora, with the responses being somewhere they shouldn't be (ie next to some very sensible responses). RMW thought that they were the only person being asked these questions.

Someone who responds 'whatever' to questions, maybe won't get the info that everyone else is getting? Leading to not knowing what the article would be like, and putting things in your book that are obsolete before the ink's dry.

This is hilarious

@FlyingOink

This is hilarious

I honestly don't get it. No earthly way would you think that barristers, solicitors, doctors or teachers would engage on the same level as Laurel from Catherine Tate.

Yeah but I love a good flounce

That is interesting.

Robin:

When you say women need protection from that disadvantage, can you clarify what you mean?

Is it that you think transwomen need protection from that disadvantage?

Or is it that you think women need protection from that disadvantage?

If it's the second one, can you propose how you would see that happening?

If it's the first one, then you probably don't need to answer, as I suspect the answer is already quite apparent.

RMW was asked to respond to a series of questions that were put with someone else's answers. RMW didn't know that this was going to happen hence withdrawing from the 'debate'

Oh, really? That's interesting. I thought it was a really helpful and interesting way of looking at the issue - two views from different angles. They are very clearly from different angles, given the difference in tone and content, too. I thought that was interesting - Robin's answers seemed much more personal while Kathleen's were apparently factual.

@Helleofabore

One would like so Eresh.

I would be interested to know what changes Robin would have made to their answers if they knew that Dr Stock was also answering the same questions.

Because if the answers given already needed changing? Why? Or were the answers given tailored to a certain audience?

Sigh!

I was entirely aware of the format and that Kathleen Stock and have not disengaged from it - no idea where that comment comes from.

But to describe it as a 'debate' means that someone has a different idea of what a debate is from me.

I saw Robin tweet: 'Oh, and I haven't yet seen a copy of the full article (we didnt see what each other had written - so even less of a debate, one might think). If someone could scan me a copy to read, I would be pleased.'

But I haven't seen Robin deny knowing that Kathleen Stock (or indeed anyone) was being asked the same questions.

I can understand Robin being reticent about it. I still think it's a positive step.

Ah sorry cross post

Robin's answers seemed much more personal while Kathleen's were apparently factual.

Yes I thought that. I guess the difficulties arise when personal feelings collide with facts.

But to describe it as a 'debate' means that someone has a different idea of what a debate is from me.

So what’s your idea of debate? You’re regularly asked questions here when you pop onto threads then you disappear. You replied to one discussion point on this thread with “whatever”. If that’s your definition of debate, then what do you call answering a series of questions posed by a highly experienced journalist?

But to describe it as a 'debate' means that someone has a different idea of what a debate is from me.

It's not just "debate" this applies to.

I would like to pipe up for Robin here, it must be hard to be the lone voice on a thread of people who disagree.

It would be great to hear more of your thoughts, Robin.

I have a question, if I may:

When I am at my local supermarket on a Saturday morning and need to pee, there is no good reason to exclude me from the female lavatories.

What about my fear of males in confined spaces? Why is that not a good reason for you to allow me the comfort and dignity of a female only space?

I hope you aren't offended by this question, I have tried to word it in as sensitive a manner as I can. Thank you.

But to describe it as a 'debate' means that someone has a different idea of what a debate is from me.

Who described it as a debate? I don't think the article itself was described by Prospect as a 'debate'.

The title of the article is: Gender wars: two opposing perspectives on the trans and women’s rights debate, and it says in the opening paragraphs: Here, we bring you two perspectives from opposing sides of the debate in the hope of illuminating points of contention as well as areas of agreement.

There is currently a debate taking place about the conflict between women's rights and trans 'rights'. The Q&A is part of this debate, as is the discussion on this thread, but that article isn't actually called 'A debate between Kathleen Stock and Robin Moira White'. Because that's not what it is.

I would like to pipe up for Robin here, it must be hard to be the lone voice on a thread of people who disagree.

See, I feel exactly the opposite. I don't care if RMW doesn't feel welcome enough. I'm not interested in pandering to selfishness and I'm not interested in being kind to some loaded barrister used to getting own way. And for someone who charges a lot of money for the use of language within a specific context, to flounce off Vicky Pollard style is genuinely very funny.

'Whatever' lol

Spoken like a true tantrumming teen.

That's made my day.