GC British guy debating US sceptic.

[Dadalus]

In case anyone finds it interesting...

twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1477004076877496328?t=wcSZsecghAvIRo2WozuheQ&s=19

It looks like the idea is to have a long exchange of letters between them, only the opening statements have been made so far.

Thanks for sharing Dadalus - looks promising.

Interesting thanks.

reading with interest

"I have long been amazed about how the sceptic movement as a whole fails to discuss the various issues around sex and gender"

Me too, Andy, me too.

Yes. It will be interesting.

I am not hopeful though. The inanity of Rabinowitz paragraph here strikes me as not willing to recognise reality from the start.

I also think it would be helpful on the policy end to clarify where we actually disagree. The major policy issues I see coming from the gender critical perspective are how trans individuals are to be recognized by society and what that means for their access to women’s only spaces like restrooms, shelters, and prisons. The other issue is trans athletes, particularly trans women competing against cis women, where there is an open debate over competitive advantage. When having these discussions, I find it valuable to at least temporarily set aside the sports question for a few reasons. I think debates about the science crowd out general moral agreement about a desire for everyone to get to compete fairly. I also think it’s worth setting aside the sports question because my experience with trans activists is that the sports debate is seen as a wedge issue for rolling back other trans rights. So I think it would be good if we can first see if we agree that trans persons should have their gender respected in all the other areas of society where competitive advantage isn’t at issue, and then we can talk about the best compromise approach when it comes to sports.

To me this means ‘let’s deny the science that shows up the reality of what is being demanded and focus on being nice’.

Same old, same old.

What else should be ‘put to the side’?

The fact that there is no evidence that shows transitioned males to have a decreased rate of committing sex crimes to other males?

The fact that women have not yet achieved sex equality in employment as a sex class over all yet now statistics for males will be included in the monitoring and will cause data skews masking the reality?

And that in female’s representation roles, we now have males? Again. And in many cases, young males who ‘identified’ as a woman a short time before they attained that position.

Or the fact that there is a phenomenon currently observed where there is an overwhelming number of teenaged girls transitioning and that any attempt to describe what is really happening with this cohort has been labeled hateful and phobic. And that the evidence about the detransitioners has been neglected because of this - so that some morally upstanding person such as Rabinowitz can declare that ‘no one knows if anything is happening at all!’.

Andy Lewis does seem to have a depth of knowledge about this. I am hopeful that he will push back on it.

But all I see is some American man determined who by the very first letter has indicated to ignore the science.

And to equate this situation as being comparative to the ‘lavender moral panic’. It is a fallacious start in my book. As far as I know, no homosexual person made demands that had such a far reaching effect as this gender identity ideology. No homosexual person demanded that they had additional rights - to be recognized as something they are materially not and to claim rights that will damage another groups.

However, he wishes to base his entire argument on whether or not the degree to which homosexuals predated on others while accessing same sex toilets was real or an over reaction, completely misses the power differential between the sexes (oh… right. Can’t mention that because he wants to put aside the sciencey bit for now). Plus the reality of the crime statistics (I expect those to be denied or put aside). And the advent since the ‘lavender moral panic’ of social media where not only evidence is mounting up of transitioned males masturbating in those toilets and making threats directly relating to toilet usage among other harms real or just threatened in reality (ie. Not made up by scaremongers).

Oh. Also the fact that females should be able to expect to have privacy and dignity in vulnerable situations away from males of any gender. Something that was nothing to do with the ‘lavender moral panic’ in my view.

So, I don’t hold out much hope for this one.

Interesting to see it from a male perspective.

But Fella2 has already shown his true colours... "Let's set aside the question of sport for now"

Nope. Start there. It encapsulates everything that needs to be discussed.

Can't do that? Then you aren't open to a real discussion and that letter exchange will be nothing but him driving some semantic twaddle - as he did with the observed sex, chromosomes, etc paragraphs.

Sadly I can't see him debating this properly.

In saying all that. I will also be following along, thank you Dadalus

Cross posted with Hellofabore but agree with every word.

And I agree with your much more succinct version.

True colours already flying high.

Interesting. I've been reading Canard Noir's stuff on and off for a very long time, from when I became interested in fighting anti-science crap on the internet. Hardly anyone in those 'sceptic' circles is standing up for women on this - Andy is a notable exception.

"I think debates about the science crowd out general moral agreement about a desire for everyone to get to compete fairly."

I don't understand what these means - debates about the science are BECAUSE everyone wants fairness. Sports isn't some exception to 'the importance of knowing who is male and female'.

Let’s leave sport out of it because obviously there’s no way to argue that it’s fair to include men in womens sports

I mean the fucking brass neck of these ppl! Let’s set aside all the things that we cannot make a convincing argument about and focus on feelings. It’s basically be kind/they just want to pee dressed up in academic language

Let's start with the position of giving male people everything they want and then negotiate a bit about how much we admit this sucks for female people?

Yeah. No.

Thanks OP, looking forward to reading this and hoping that the sceptical readership will be convinced by actual facts and evidence.

I am so disappointed in the Skeptics.

This is the only subject they refuse to be sceptical about.

I'd like to see Robin Ince chat about it with, say, Glinner in this format.

But male-bodied people don't just have a physical advantage over women when it comes to sports.

The fact they are generally much bigger, stronger and more likely to be violent than us matters in lots of other situations too, especially in places where we are vulnerable.

Why isn't this difference, and its potential to impact on our safety, obvious to more men?

I am not sure I think this is really so out of character for popular Skepticism. I find they tend to be quite inclined to scientism and an extremely naive view of epistemology in general.

But as far as the letter, to me the first problem isn't that he wants to set aside the sports issue. It's that he wants to start by talking about how trans people should have their gender recognized. They aren't even starting at the beginning, which is what does it mean to be trans as such? What is gender, and what do people mean when they use it in that context?

Starting with "do you accept the gender of trans people" is really just accepting a particular fomulation right from the get go.

@heathspeedwell

But male-bodied people don't just have a physical advantage over women when it comes to sports.

The fact they are generally much bigger, stronger and more likely to be violent than us matters in lots of other situations too, especially in places where we are vulnerable.

Why isn't this difference, and its potential to impact on our safety, obvious to more men?

I think it's obvious to a lot of them, most men think the whole idea of men in women's sports and other areas is bollocks.

Maybe guys in the Skeptic movement aren't a very athletic bunch?

His definition of sex is all over the place too, despite his attempts to define it. He fails to understand there's a difference between sex and sex expression and it pretty much goes downhill from there.

I think he is saying sex is able to be changed under his definition. He will no doubt refer to that blog post of sex is a spectrum.

In terms of the Skeptic movement, it's interesting to see that where they struggle is where science intersects with ideas around language and meaning, social constructs, values, etc.

They've always put so much emphasis on starting with scientific empiricism, but it really doesn't give them much help in terms of those other areas. And it's not like those things aren't real just because they can't be dealt with empirically.

For those who don't know, the 'GC British guy' is MN's @quackometer123

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3779701-The-State-of-Pseudoscience-and-Skepticism

Surprise! Surprise! Rabinowitz is quibbling about Andy mentioning a 4000% increase for girls presenting at gender clinics. Rabinowitz says he can only find 2500% increase.

He doesn’t get it!! He is NOT curious about the increase. He is arguing about the data.

While admitting he is perplexed why people are pointing out how ridiculous it is to ‘put aside’ the science for sport.

twitter.com/etvpod/status/1477344829726150659?s=12

Watching with interest.

I can't say I'm impressed with the US chap.

As pp's have noted "putting aside sport" demonstrates an unwillingness to debate in good faith.

@SantaClawsServiette

I am not sure I think this is really so out of character for popular Skepticism. I find they tend to be quite inclined to scientism and an extremely naive view of epistemology in general.

But as far as the letter, to me the first problem isn't that he wants to set aside the sports issue. It's that he wants to start by talking about how trans people should have their gender recognized. They aren't even starting at the beginning, which is what does it mean to be trans as such? What is gender, and what do people mean when they use it in that context?

Starting with "do you accept the gender of trans people" is really just accepting a particular fomulation right from the get go.

I agree with you @Santa " Aaron starts from the assumption that to quote Emma Watson "trans people are who they say they are", entirely uncritically, without looking at historical or social context or data. He starts from an assumption that trans is the correct diagnosis for a societal and physical discomfort ignoring the many variables that may play into arriving at that conclusion, not least the ability to explore these ideas via the internet from an individual's point of view, and the benefits to had commercially from upholding this diagnosis from the point of view both of the medical/pharma industry and other industry generally. I think the reason this is not explored is because it involves suggesting to people in pain that they may not be entirely right in their understanding of what their issues are. No-one wants to do that, causing people pain, but if we can't look it in the eye, we can't progress a real conversation. The anorexia parallel is entirely relevant I feel.