Getting to yes.

[JustSpeculation]

I bought and read "Getting to yes", a book on negotiation by Fisher and Ury, after Helen Joyce referred to it in Trans. It's an excellent book, which points out that if you negotiate from your positions rather than your interests your negotiation is probably doomed. "Interests" are characterised as the reasons why you took up your position. Sticking to your guns and insisting that everyone adopts your position will lead to deadlock, while a more thoughtful consideration of actual interests might lead to compromise and the establishment of common ground.

The Trans debate has been really interesting (as well as harrowing and exasperating). Stonewall's "no debate" mantra seems now to be disappearing over the horizon, which is good. So in one sense the real public debate has only just started. Labour have actually started making pronouncements, even if they are still at the stage of being ambiguous and incomprehensible. Sometimes just illogical. They still seem to believe that Teflon, non-stick blandishments will work. They ignore the fact that people (and I mean people, men as well as women) are often quite intelligent and can see beyond the end of their noses.

JKRs tweets are deeply satisfying, and have led me to make Posie Parker £12 richer by buying a pin off her, but they're still at the yelling stage.

How do we get to the "interests" and "common ground" stage? How do we get beyond positions?

That's an interesting post JustSpeculation
My take on this is there's got to be much more open discussion before we can move towards resolution discussions. As women are being repeatedly threatened, harassed and bullied out of our jobs for speaking, it will need a lot more democratic debate before we get to that stage.
Starmer's ridiculous contribution today is at least a start - even though it's incoherent and inaccurate but it's moved him on a fraction from his earlier directions that women must not discuss our cervixes.

I really just don't think that negotiation is possible with this group, I think HJ was right when she said that we have to speak around these people because we will get nowhere speaking to them. The majority of TRA's are not coming from a place of good faith, it's incredibly calculated and narcissistic when men force women into the position of their oppressor. People are still spewing crap about this 'most marginalised' group years down the line when the facts are out there to be found.

Any compromise is a loose, we just have to win.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

That's an interesting post JustSpeculation My take on this is there's got to be much more open discussion before we can move towards resolution discussions. As women are being repeatedly threatened, harassed and bullied out of our jobs for speaking, it will need a lot more democratic debate before we get to that stage. Starmer's ridiculous contribution today is at least a start - even though it's incoherent and inaccurate but it's moved him on a fraction from his earlier directions that women must not discuss our cervixes.

So, in a couple of years then. At least we seem to have got to the stage where people have noticed that there's something going on....

@IdentifyingAsAPrincess

I really just don't think that negotiation is possible with this group,

Yes. So we just keep on...

Agree - look at the TRA response to the Cass report or the recent EHRC statements on Twitter - they are not people that can be reasoned with or will respond to rational, evidence-based thinking... their whole existence and thinking is irrational after all... smile and nod and focus on getting shit sorted out, they are a waste of energy

Well, we could say we aren't trying to discuss the issues with random TRAs on Twitter. I agree that's pointless. But we need to discuss the issues with lawmakers, MPs, legislators, etc.

And yes, there have been years in which women have been attacked, ignored, derided, mocked, threatened and coerced into NOT talking about it, so there is just a little tiny bit of rage and fury that has built up that may need to be heard.

I think there are layers. First we need to talk about the fact we need to talk about it. We need acknowledgement that women have rights. I think we're almost there ... this whole affair has illustrated in a rather harsh and unflattering way just how far women's rights extend (only as far as they please and don't threaten those of males).

... and then we can get onto discussing the issues like the GRA.

I agree with Helen Joyce: we go around them, and that’s what many women’s groups do, they engage with the people who can make change.

Some politicians are beginning to see the truth; just as you can’t be ‘a little bit pregnant’, spaces, services, and sports can’t be a ‘little bit mixed sex’. Once they grasp that we will make progress.

Many are still at the stage of thinking there must be a middle ground if only people would negotiate. That’s the hurdle we need to get them over.

I think it starts by acknowledging that there are some conflicts in what different groups want and need.

For example a trans woman may feel unsafe in certain situations and want/need to protect themselves/group themselves with women to ensure their safety. Women can acknowledge open access to female spaces makes them afraid.

Trans people can acknowledge their desire to compete in sport. Women can acknowledge that trans women in sport puts them in danger physically or reduces the ability to compete fairly.

We need to start with the fact that there are some ‘good actors’ on both sides, build trust and negotiate solutions from a starting point that their IS conflict.

At the moment it’s considered transphobic just to acknowledge conflicting needs. That’s never going to end up in peaceable agreement/solutions or even peaceable disagreement. Women will experience it as gaslighting and trans people will experience any dissenting views as personal attacks on them.

And yes, there have been years in which women have been attacked, ignored, derided, mocked, threatened and coerced into NOT talking about it, so there is just a little tiny bit of rage and fury that has built up that may need to be heard.

Yes!

Many are still at the stage of thinking there must be a middle ground if only people would negotiate. That’s the hurdle we need to get them over.

Yes. I think that's rather the point. There is no middle ground between positions, because the positions are mutually exclusive. Women can not be "Adult human females" and "Adult human males" at the same time unless you completely change the meaning of male and female - which is what they're trying to do, and what we're objecting to. But there may be from the point of view of interests. It will have to be created.

I remember watching that clip from "Question Time" where Robert Winston said that you cannot change your sex, and Fiona Bruce coming back with a sharp "There are many people who vehemently disagree with you". I remember the look on Winston's face. My thought at the time was that there are people who believe vehemently that the Earth is flat, but it demonstrably isn't. Vehemence means nothing in deciding who is right and wrong. But it does in conducting a negotiation. De-escalation may be some way off, but it has to happen eventually.

Maybe not yet, though.

Oh, and I remembered that the "Getting to yes" reference is not from Helen's book, but from one of the interviews she gave after it was published.

I think it starts by acknowledging that there are some conflicts in what different groups want and need.

Very, very yes!

Stephen Hassan. Thanks. Recording the name.

I am really not sure why my post was deleted! I didnt break any rules. Its very frustrating taking the time to wrote out a long, calm and well thought out post with no hate & following guidelines for it to be just deleted.

I will re-post the bones of what I said:

It appears the activism within the trans movement is like a cult.

Stephen Hassan (cult expert) states:

''Cults often use behavior modification on followers, such as thought- stopping techniques and instilling an "us-versus-them" mindset, Hassan said. With thought-stopping techniques, members are taught to stop doubts from entering their consciousness about the cult, often with a key phrase they repeat.''

He has a great book called 'combating cult mind control'.

Some of this feels relevant with regards to the 'no debate'

sacred, I'm sorry, you can't use the c word on this board. We're not allowed to draw parallels.

There are the 'guidelines' at the top but there are also vague, unwritten rules, and not using the c word is one of them.

It is sometimes instructive to see what particular things draw reports from the people who monitor this board. There are certain things they don't want women to discuss.

Transactivists have worked behind the scenes for years, presumably because those who are smart enough to truly understand, know that what they’re asking for is deeply contentious. I don’t think they will ever manage to convince the wider public that treating some men as if they were women is ever going to work, especially as some of the men they are demanding should have that privilege have already demonstrated clearly why that isn’t safe.

So we cannot come to some kind of middle ground, because we were in the middle ground a few years ago, and now we’re way beyond it.

So we’re left with trying to persuade those in power of that fact, so that we can undo some of the damage.

I think, once we’ve managed some damage control (and there’s every sign that’s happening in the UK, if not elsewhere) then we will need to move onto a new stage of negotiation, where we suggest the logical alternative, which might perhaps involve some kind of legal status beyond M and F (perhaps an acknowledgment of a transition status in one direction or the other) alongside some kind of third spaces or services.

I don’t necessarily think it should be women who drive the latter stage, however I think it might shore up women’s position if an alternative model is presented that is so obviously reasonable that it removes the likelihood of a return to the current, damaging argument that people deserve to be treated as if they were literally the opposite sex.

Apologies, to tie all that to the OP, I think women are already arguing their position, which is to persuade the powers that be that women’s rights have already been compromised, and that the further travel that is being demanded, will only cause more harm.

Once that’s achieved, perhaps we need to consider where we go after that, but for now, I think women need to continue to assert themselves as presenting a reasonable position in the argument. It’s an uphill struggle, due to the traditional lack of power women have, but it’s getting noticeable that there are quite a lot of us.

Thanks for that answer @TheCurrywurstPrion.

That suggests to me that we need to stay at the level of debate for the foreseeable future. Stay at the place where positions are argued.

I don't think there is a middle ground in positions. Women are either adult human females, or they are something else. In which case, the word "woman" loses its meaning. The gender vs sex positions are irreconcilable. That's why Dodds, Starmer and so on are waffling like I used to do in sixth form essays - they know they don't have a position, and are just hoping that if they waffle long enough it will all go away.

I don’t necessarily think it should be women who drive the latter stage

Then who will?

Getting to Yes is a great book, I read it years ago. However, trying to negotiate, or even discuss these issues seems like an impossible task. Look at the fiasco around the recent proposed debate with Helen Joyce and Grace Lavery, where GL pulled out for...reasons.

A few weeks ago, The Mess we're in actually did try and have a debate with someone from the opposing side, he was a member of the Skeptics Society. It was an absolute carcrash! The very first thing he did was to accuse our side of being anti Semitic, based on research quoted in Helen Joyce's book. The entire interview was just him trying to derail it, it was so frustrating to watch!

In order to successfully negotiate, BOTH parties have to be willing to listen and to empathise. I don't see any of that coming from the other side and in fact what they do instead is just throw insults. So, I don't know what the answer is, they don't seem to want third spaces, which would be an acceptable compromise, so all we can do is keep saying no, and try to increase our numbers, which we are doing. The thing that gets me is that this is such a vote loser, and women are half of the population, but the political parties don't seem to care!

This is the Glinner episode I mentioned above. Extremely frustrating to watch!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=d_VfCKtrZPQ

Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like a nation that has been invaded (under the circumstances a poor analogy for which I apologise) and during the invasion, my language, history, legal protections and rights have been overwritten and/or threatened and my right to freedom of movement challenged ...

There can be no talk of 'common ground' here.

Until the 'other side' backs of and returns to me what is mine (and to women what is ours) I'm not up for talking at all.

Also, as far as I see it, the only real issue of 'common ground' is men's violence and until that is named by the other side as the real issue (rather than women's desperate attempts at self-defence) then there is no talking. Also necessary is that the 'other side' admit to their own violence against us (some of which is male violence).

The thing that gets me is that this is such a vote loser, and women are half of the population, but the political parties don't seem to care!

That's shifting. They're finding it increasingly hard to dodge the issue, and they're trying to figure out how to square the circle between of alienating half their voters or their privileged woke interns throwing the toys out the pram.

(Maybe the answer is to actually pay staff then they wouldn't have to put up with so many privileged little twats in the office).

This was interesting - leader of the SDP talking about it in his speech at conference. He's clearly decided this is an issue their party can leverage.

twitter.com/WilliamClouston/status/1457760160617750533

I don’t necessarily think it should be women who drive the latter stage

Then who will?

I didn’t make myself clear, My feeling is that it ought to be transactivists that come up with a viable solution that would allow those who transition to be safe and comfortable, without taking anything (further) from women.

Ideally, realising that their current demands have a negative impact on women, they would search for alternative solutions. But given that they appear to be arguing for personal interests and show no signs of attempting to find a both sides or win-win solution, then I think women will have to argue the entire point.

I suspect that if women do this, they will still not be met in the middle, which is what would occur if the other side were reasonable. There is really no viable reason this approach wouldn’t work. So women will then be demonstrating that they are being reasonable, having offered a viable solution, which has been rejected out of hand.

So we won’t “meet in the middle” ever, women will have to demonstrate that to those in power, rather than negotiate directly, as might be possible with a more reasonable opponent.

Meet me in the middle, say the unjust man.

You take a step towards him. He takes a step back.

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like a nation that has been invaded (under the circumstances a poor analogy for which I apologise) and during the invasion, my language, history, legal protections and rights have been overwritten and/or threatened and my right to freedom of movement challenged ...

There can be no talk of 'common ground' here.

Until the 'other side' backs of and returns to me what is mine (and to women what is ours) I'm not up for talking at all.

Also, as far as I see it, the only real issue of 'common ground' is men's violence and until that is named by the other side as the real issue (rather than women's desperate attempts at self-defence) then there is no talking. Also necessary is that the 'other side' admit to their own violence against us (some of which is male violence).

This is pretty much how I feel Spartacus.

Men with identities trying to colonise us is not something I'm prepared to be "reasonable" about and I don't much care how those men sort themselves out but it should not be at the expense of women in any way, shape or form.

I think there are layers. First we need to talk about the fact we need to talk about it. We need acknowledgement that women have rights. I think we're almost there ... this whole affair has illustrated in a rather harsh and unflattering way just how far women's rights extend (only as far as they please and don't threaten those of males).
Are we yet at the stage where our Foreign Minister is talking to Putin's foreign minister about talking about talking?
Or are we still at the Minister for Sport stage?

@TheCurrywurstPrion

Apologies, to tie all that to the OP, I think women are already arguing their position, which is to persuade the powers that be that women’s rights have already been compromised, and that the further travel that is being demanded, will only cause more harm.

Once that’s achieved, perhaps we need to consider where we go after that, but for now, I think women need to continue to assert themselves as presenting a reasonable position in the argument. It’s an uphill struggle, due to the traditional lack of power women have, but it’s getting noticeable that there are quite a lot of us.

Yes I agree. I think womens position (well mine anyway) is:

1. female humans and male humans have different needs based on biology
2. we need female only spaces for dignity in dealing with female bodily functions
3. we need female only spaces for safeguarding vulnerable women and young children
4. It is offensive, damaging and exclusionary to control how female humans refer to themselves and their interests