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?

That's true. And it's a problem entirely of their own making. If they had a coherent definition of trans women - say, men who had gone through sexual reassignment surgery - it's possible that their offending rates are nearer those of women, or at least lower than those of men. You could at least have a defined group of people on which to carry out research.

But because their definition of trans women is "every man who says he's a trans woman" then obviously their offending rates aren't going to be any lower than those of other men. The term "trans woman" just becomes something that any old person could identify into, for a range of possible motives.

It's nuts. But you know that.

That's true. And it's a problem entirely of their own making. If they had a coherent definition of trans women - say, men who had gone through sexual reassignment surgery - it's possible that their offending rates are nearer those of women, or at least lower than those of men. You could at least have a defined group of people on which to carry out research.

But because their definition of trans women is "every man who says he's a trans woman" then obviously their offending rates aren't going to be any lower than those of other men. The term "trans woman" just becomes something that any old person could identify into, for a range of possible motives.

YY. Exactly.

A number of Allison Bailey witnesses have revealed on the stand that they cannot explain and do not fully understand what they profess to so passionately support, in fact their interest in it is rather skin deep and superficial. What they are much more interested in is how it serves as a vehicle and veneer of righteousness for being able to exercise unpleasant superiority and control over others without the usual consequences, and to demand that other people's boundaries are removed in their favour.

Misogyny is one front and centre. Homophobia is in there too.

In my estimation all of the best attempts at this run into the problem that they don't hang together. So you have the explanation that transition might help people with very sever sex dysphoria. Maybe that makes some sense. Then you have the explanation that "gender" is this sort of new language to talk about masculinity and femininity. Well, maybe, but it really isn't the same as the medical approach.

Plus muliple other ideas, some of which are crazy, others just incompatible, and they all fall under thie same umbrella.

MangyInseam · Today 03:36

In my estimation all of the best attempts at this run into the problem that they don't hang together.

I think you're right. I watched a fantastic video last night that explained this point really really well. I think I found the vid on here... will try to find the thread and comment and link back to this one.

I see still no offers to the OP on their original question.

May I simplify it?

Anything, anywhere, that actually shows caring, listening and valuing of female voices and experiences and seeks for a solution that works for them too? As opposed to the easily found evidence that runs the spectrum from 'a female should not have feelings and needs and wishes of her own as opposed to being all about those things in an obviously more important male stranger' to 'go and die in a grease fire'.

A number of Allison Bailey witnesses have revealed on the stand that they cannot explain and do not fully understand what they profess to so passionately support, in fact their interest in it is rather skin deep and superficial.

I think the Allison Bailey tribunal did a superb job of exposing the flimsy foundations of this ideology. Because if anyone is capable of giving a coherent, clear explanation of a particular set of ideas, surely it's barristers? Yet they all floundered, they were evasive, they pretended to forget, they exaggerated, they misrepresented...it rapidly became clear that they don't have a single coherent argument with which to defend the set of ideas they are apparently so wedded to.

[OP takes thread a bit off topic!] I have no idea about this podcast generally (looks like it might be pretty bad) but this video was pretty interesting -

But there is one bit that I just thought was superb... from 4.31 onwards...

Paraphrased - the insanity of the TRA position is demonstrated by the fact we're supposed to believe multiple conflicting and mutually exclusive views - men and women are simultaneously equal (women can do anything men can do); different (women are oppressed by the patriarchy); and interchangeable (men can be women and vice versa).

Also, from 15.45 onwards for about a minute the one on the left is spot on again.

Still waiting for the most convincing, reasoned, compassionate explaination of the TRA position... surely there must be something considerably more convincing that the Stonewall website - that cannot possibly be the peak (no pun intended) of TRA thinking can it?

If the link is bronken then on youtube search "Posie Parker Stumps Piers Morgan" - vid is 30.32 long and the channel is "The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters"

What AB’s trial actually showed very clearly is that this is a religion.

and actually, like all religions, I don’t think it needs to make sense to the non believers. It obviously brings great comfort and euphoria to the believers and that’s great for them. I’m even broadly fine with them sharing their beliefs.

But I don’t want this religion mixing with politics or legislation. Much as I don’t want Catholics to influence legislation on women’s reproductive choices or the Sikh community to have the power to outlaw haircuts for us all.

Im happy for it to be taught in schools at an appropriate age as part of PHSE or RE. In the style of some people believe. Here’s how to critically examine belief. Here’s how we live harmoniously with opposing beliefs. Here’s how to debate. Etc.

But biology must continue to be fact based. Sex education must continue to be fact based. And children must continue to be safeguarded.

If they'd done as you suggest, they would've had it by now, with help & support from women.

From Twitter

Is there anything that you can say to these crackpots other than TWAW, #bekind?

We literally can't even ask for a convincing explanation of their position without being attacked for it?

Insane.

Well that's the issue right there, summed up in IW's tweet.

Asking calmly and politely for a sensible explanation is met with being misrepresented and sneered at.

The line is just "what I say about myself is true, no reason, it just is, and this is inherent to my existence so if you dare to doubt it or ask for reasons in any way, you are harming me". The only options the ideology allows are to go along with that, ideally with much praise and celebration too, or be a terrible person (also for unexplained reasons).

In the tweet previous to that one "Breaks my heart that trans people are banned from British media. It’s discrimination - but I don’t know what we can do about it." FFS, you could not make up the levl of dishonesty Willoughby is capable of.

Breaks my heart that trans people are banned from British media

OMG! In the major media industry I work in, everyone is falling over themselves to promote every trans-identified person they can possibly find. It doesn't matter whether they are any good at what they do, and it doesn't matter that there's no way of telling if they are genuine. I could come out as NB tomorrow and make a big deal about it and I'd have offers coming out of my ears.

I don't because I'm not a liar (and I'm shit at lying) and I'm respected for my scientific rigour and I take the long view. But I could and people do.

Hi, India. You do you, pet but I want to do me. Which is believe that sex is binary. It doesn't always matter but sometimes it really matters. I sometimes need single-sex spaces. I'm legally entitled to them.

@RoseLunarPink

Is there any irony here? This is the "bio" on Willoughby's Instagram page -

"World’s first trans newsreader 👑 Broadcaster, Presenter. Celebrity Big Brother, Good Morning Britain, This Morning and others ❤️🌟"

Is Willoughby lying about being trans or is Willoughby lying about trans people in the media? And to be clear Willoughby could be lying about both - if being trans is all about your feelings and identity then we can have no certainty that post op transsexuals aren't performance artists or opportunists, not real trans.

Also what does India think is happening when India gets invited onto numerous national news, chat, entertainment and current affairs TV shows and interviewed by magazines? Maybe it was all a dream...

Thanks India.

'females daring to question anything at all regarding the absolute trampling of their rights and resources by males is abhorrent violence'.

Whatever.

And hence my position: you cannot be reasonable with the unreasonable, and there comes a point where you just have to stop patiently trying to make sense of the hyperbole, dramatics, inability to have any kind of conversation, inability to have any kind of reciprocal care for others, and inability to have any kind of coherence or clarity, and say no. I'm done now. I'm not engaging with this any further, I am not your mum.

IW tweeted that ages ago and no-ones been on to Educate Us, how weird.

Thought someone might at least post that crappy Scientific American article that correctly says DSDs exist, there's no substantial difference between male and female brains... but then argues that therefore men become women if they say they are

Every time someone who appears to have a track record for being evidence-based in their decision-making — like my GP friends, my accountant friend, my paediatric consultant friend, my clinical psychologist friend, my friend who's spent a lifetime working on trying to prevent mosquitos spreading malaria — announces that they are trans allies I hope that they, being intelligent and scientific by nature, will hold the key to understanding what this is all about. I keep waiting for their killer argument. They don't have one. Instead they confirm my suspicion that very clever, well-meaning people can be persuaded to believe anything and are actually much more dangerous than ordinary oiks who believe the evidence of their eyes and call a spade a spade.

I clicked on this, full of hope that the OP was going to convince me, and i could swap sides to the one with all the networking opportunities in publishing.

But no. My hopes have been cruelly dashed. Placemarking for when someone does answer the OP.

Also, hi to you too, India!

OP, this doesn't answer everything you ask, but it is a much more level-headed and even-handed approach than I have seen anywhere else.

www.norwichquakers.org.uk/post/norwich-meeting-s-experience-of-conflict-around-transgender-issues-january-2019-january-2020

It's quite long but, IMO, worth it: it's an account of Norwich Quakers agreeing to host a Woman's Place meeting, the issues that arose from that, and their subsequent setting up of two "listening meetings" at which each side could set out their beliefs. I think it's the most genuinely unbiased account I've found of trying to understand both sides of the argument.

Agree Pluvia, it's a really unsettling feeling. And then there's their horror and dismay that their friend is a terrible bigot, or in the case of my family member, their patronising emails telling me that I haven't understood (still without bothering to explain or defend their beliefs rationally).

I'm lucky to have some friends who I can discuss it with in a genuine way, and that's always a huge relief - and it's not always full agreement, but at least a real discussion with reference to facts.

Then there's the weird dance of testing the water and subtly signalling that you are in fact a feminist/understand sex-based rights/don't really think "Jake" in year 6 has actually magically transformed into a boy, until you can get a feel for whether the other person is going to report you to the witchfinder general.