The "Stonewall position" justified using facts, logic, reason and compassion

[GCRich]

This is a serious question. I would love someone to show me a few of the best essays or articles which use facts, logic, reason and compassion to try to justify some or all Stonewall-approved "trans rights" positions.

My GC beliefs come in part from my complete failure to find anything at all convincing to back up Stonewall's position. But, by definition, there must be articles or essays which summarise the key arguments in a way that makes them amongst the best justifications of Stonewall's position. What and where are these articles?

To be clear - I am 99.999% that there is nothing that could make me depart from my GC beliefs, but I am curious to know if there is anything out there which could be seen as somewhat convincing. There must be something out there that is more convincing than #TWAW #bekind? Mustn't there?

Think you are in for a long wait.

Nobody has ever managed to put it across to me in a way that makes sense. I have no issue with the following propositions: some people feel a deep discomfort with their sexed body; some people are more comfortable presenting in an opposite sex or 'neutral' fashion; some people go further and want to change their bodies to match a subjective sense of 'identity', and adopt new names and pronouns (although I don't think anyone can be forced to use them) to match that internal sense of identity.

But other than that, I have no idea.

I have yet to find it and I am with you. I read everything I can on a topic. I have not yes found anything from the Stonewall / trans rights perspective that offers:

Clear guidance on position
Clear definition of terms
An acceptance and understanding of other positions
A balance of each protected groups rights

If anyone sends you anything please share as I would love to read it too.

I’d like to see that too, but don’t believe that it exists. If it did they’d have it front and centre, but instead they smear, obfuscate, operate in the shadows, and lobby behind closed doors.

They didn’t have to do any of this with gay rights.

tabbycatstripy · Today 13:50

Nobody has ever managed to put it across to me in a way that makes sense. I have no issue with the following propositions: some people feel a deep discomfort with their sexed body; some people are more comfortable presenting in an opposite sex or 'neutral' fashion; some people go further and want to change their bodies to match a subjective sense of 'identity', and adopt new names and pronouns (although I don't think anyone can be forced to use them) to match that internal sense of identity.

But other than that, I have no idea.

I'm with you.

But to be clear... I want the best articles. By definition someone, somewhere, must have written something which is more well reasoned and convincing that other attempt? Surely? They don;t have to be great, just the best.

Perhaps a TRA lurking can help me out?

Not going to happen. Every time I think that I might just be persuaded, the initially persuasive person goes haywire and gets banned (from here anyway).

Part of the problem is their “no exceptions” stance. They have included fetishists, cross dressers and autogynephiles under their trans umbrella, and want the whole lot to have free access to naked women in changing rooms, showers, prisons, etc and then wonder why women object.
If they had limited themselves to just the ones with gender dysphoria, and campaigned for third spaces rather than demanded to access ours, I think they would have had a much better reception.

Stonewall have a pretty in depth explanation of their position on their website.

www.stonewall.org.uk/truth-about-trans#trans-people-uk

It pretty much boils down to...

1. Most marginalised community.


2. Super high risk of suicide.


3. People only really detransion because their relatives won't accept them as trans


4. Medicalisation of process is super bad but drugs and surgeries are essential and life saving.


5. For all of the above reason let trans people do whatever they want whenever they want and there is certainly no impact on any other people at all especially women.

Trouble is, they never offer any evidence for their claims, just rage and threats if you ask for any. The 'high risk of suicide', for example, has been disproved by very simple searches of statistics. Claims that trans people are more likely to be murdered than others have been similarly disproved by checking the stats.

It doesn't matter how often these are pointed out. No debate! Bigots! Hate! You're denying my existence! etc

I have never found the answer to this, either, but have been told by a couple of people that “it’s very complicated”. Despite being reassured that I am quite open to trying to understand complicated ideas, they don’t seem to want to try and explain it to me.

Quite why SW materials are often used in schools is therefore a mystery to me, given that it’s “so complicated”. Perhaps 14-year-olds of average intelligence have a better grasp of complex ideas than we adults? Who knows.

I remember reading Mermaids' responce to EHRC guidelines and seeing how they've completely missed the point.

It's not as mad-angry-cry as I'm sure they want to be, they've clearly held back a lot in order to appear reasonable.

Anyway it's quite convincing using the usual hyperbole and obfuscation (eg repeatedly referring to "trans people" where the relevant issue is male people).

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/our-analysis-on-the-ehrcs-single-sex-spaces-guidance/

They lie about the EA2010 (no surprise there seeing as the whole ideology is built on lies) by saying "...there is a weight attached to ‘biological sex’ that is not found within the EA10 itself." despite"man" and "woman" both being explicitly defined by biology in the Equality Act itself, and lie a bit more about the guidance there.

They say "transwomen are more likely to experience domestic abuse" but don't say compared to what, in any case that's a dubious claim.

They invoke gender ideology myth number 10 "no one can tell anyone's sex without genital inspections" when they advise their readers to carry on using the spaces they want regardless of the impact on others because no one can tell anyway.

Closes with "trans people are a vulnerable minority who just want to exist..."
Also, the guidelines are wrong, all wrong, because they don't even mention NB people who make up the majority of trans people. (Remind me again how trendy, white, middle class university students are "the most vulnerable and marginalized...?)

Many young people will come across and also put across these claims and arguments, so it's worth reading.

Well you have all the clinical trials and studies into it, oh wait, Stonewall and TRA groups have blocked the studies from taking place.

Ray Blanchard did the best study into it, but because TRAs don't like his findings they've said that it's dodgy data.

I believe the murder rate of trans women was based off of the number of Brazilian trans sex workers killed.

Of course the statistic they don't like is that around 50% of self-identified trans inmates are sex offenders.

It's very much like trying to argue with religious people, in that everything they believe follows from an unverifiable (indeed implausible) premise. I noticed in the thread about the Allison Bailey case that one of the GCC barristers was arguing that there was no reason to believe that trans women were any more likely to be violent or to be sexual predators than other women.

But of course that requires you to accept that trans women are women. If you don't believe that - if you believe, as demanded by reason and evidence, that trans women are men, then the burden of proof falls a different way. We need them to prove that trans women are less likely than other men to be violent or sexual predators.

And this is why it's impossible to have any kind of reasoned debate with them. If you don't accept the initial faith proposition (that God created the world, or that trans women are women), then none of the rest of it makes sense.

Following with interest. I, a trained researcher, who has tried to look at this issue from all sides, have never found a counterargument grounded in logic, reason, factual accuracy, etc. I've found lies, assertions, and a lot of emotional appeals, but not a rational argument.

I once found a Guardian article setting it out with links to external articles. That's the best I've ever seen but honestly it was still totally crackers. Like where reason and logic went to die. I'd dig it out but I can't be bothered as it's still such hog wash. There's also a Guardian article giving it a good go to explain why trans racialism is totally different to trans genderism. Sex as a spectrum is also worth a Google of you hate reason.

But of course that requires you to accept that trans women are women. If you don't believe that - if you believe, as demanded by reason and evidence, that trans women are men, then the burden of proof falls a different way. We need them to prove that trans women are less likely than other men to be violent or sexual predators.

I agree about the fait point - and generally atheists don't have arguments with religious people about what they believe because everyone knows that religions are about faith, and not about evidence.

However, even if you think TWAW, the evidence still shows that they offend at the same rates and in the same patterns as men. So it's definitely not the case that the risk of them offending is the same as for "other women".

Either way, whatever you think they are, the offending rate statistics are the same and are very unlike those of women. This is one reason why my approach to this when faced with gender ideologists is to say I base my views and understanding on science and evidence, and I haven't seen any clear evidence for TWAW etc. so I'd welcome them showing it to me. They can't.

Never seen any anywhere which is why I read the threads in this section, in the vain hope of someone explaining it all logically. Placemarking in case it finally happens.

I also live in hope, OP.

But having had multiple discussions about the new definitions of 'homophobia' that apparently doesn't mean 'prejudice about same sex attraction' -

I have tried hard to listen, to understand, to establish what on earth it does now mean from several posters here who were passionate about this change.

I still have no idea what they mean by it, and it's sadly apparent that they don't either, so regretfully I give up on expending any further energy on this and am going back to the definition it has always been, and as is defined in law.

Which incidentally makes Stonewall et al really quite homophobic. They identify as not being, but that doesn't really change much.

Point being - it is very hard to understand no matter how hard you try when the people you are talking to really don't seem to be certain either, or able to face all the facts involved.

See AB's court case witnesses for examples.

.... tumbleweed...

@FrancescaContini
"...have been told by a couple of people that “it’s very complicated”. Despite being reassured that I am quite open to trying to understand complicated ideas, they don’t seem to want to try and explain it to me.

Quite why SW materials are often used in schools is therefore a mystery to me, given that it’s “so complicated”. Perhaps 14-year-olds of average intelligence have a better grasp of complex ideas than we adults? Who knows."

That Francesca is an absolutely brilliant point. If its ok with you,whenever I see someone saying "it's so complicated" which is not infrequent, I'm going to copy/pasta that quote.

I think a lot of people in the AB court case are like those elsewhere, in schools, in publishing and the arts etc who have only really taken in the surface presentation of "We must be kind and nice to a suffering, persecuted group who are discriminated against and harmed just like gay people 50 years ago." Most people especially in the arts and middle-class professions want to be seen as modern and inclusive and would hate to be seen as homophobic, so they were keen to be on board.

It's only when you dig deeper you realise that for SW and gender ideologists, the persecution and harm they're talking about is not actual discrimination or lack of rights, it isn't what gay people faced 50 years ago at all. In fact, it's disagreeing in any way with a false ideology - simply failing to agree that someone has literally changed sex the moment they say so and now has all the rights of their claimed sex and the right to make you say they are, is the "transphobia" that's being opposed and used as a label to destroy people.

Then in order not to have to turn tail and be witch-hunted, they end up having to go along with all this shite and find themselves agreeing that lesbians not wanting to sleep with males is like apartheid racism, and a rapist who suddenly self IDs as trans is an actual woman, etc.

By that point you've gone past anything that reasoned, logical evidence and argument could possibly explain.

I use the idea that sexual orientation should be replaced by orientation based on gender as a sleep-inducing device. It's fun to go round the circles any attempt to make sense of the latter causes!

It cannot be made sense, not if 'gender identity' is used as the basis and not if 'gender presentation' is used as the basis. It just doesn't make any sense at all. Your orientation can even change if your partner's identity changes and you stay with that partner, so what others do switches your buttons.

I saw the title and thought you were offering the information. 😄I clicked it on it hoping for enlightenment.