Debate on Tran's and a comment about Kathleen Stock

[Hawkins003]

For all the knowledgeable mumsnetters
Who's correct and who's mistaken ?

This is how it started

#oxfess23322
Not gonna lie, #Oxhate to the Oxford Union hosting the "Gender Critical" Kathleen Stock later this term. As a trans guy who just wants to live his life with joy and is more than well aware of the increasing Western stripping and dehumanisation of trans rights, the last thing we need now is promotion of such people who actively push back against a minority who just want to live their lives, especially from such a prestigious university. Trans people are people, we are valid and we deserve respect and not being exposed to such bigotry

Then the response by one commenter was

I don't know much about the whole debate, but then what about the freedoms etc that have been won by certain genders now getting eroded ?

Then a person replied in two parts saying

That isn't really to do with transgender people just wanting their right to live as their desired gender- that's more to do with the increasing enforcement of toxic patriarchal ideas and rising fascistic tendencies of the Western world as a result of the weaknesses of democratic systems popular conservative governments and men such as Trump who then in turn bring along misogynistic allies who stay long after such leaders are gone. This in turn makes misogynists generally more confident to speak their actual mind. Karl Popper's Tolerance Paradox can also be inserted into this conversation

This was their second part

And the problem with this is that along with this number of people in politics with misogynist ideas comes a majority of misogynists in law making sectors- think the Supreme Court - that when harmful proposals such as the repeal of Roe Vs Wade are put through a Supreme Court vote, then the more likely that it is that such laws will go through. And the problem with such systems as the jury in the Supreme Court is that once they are elected or chosen, then they are there for the long term and can't be gotten rid of

Much appreciated all certainly intriguing perspectives

You know, I've just realised why these fuckers are so obsessed with the idea that there's a connection between banning abortion and not wanting men perving on teenage girls in the ladies' changing rooms.

Both stances interfere with men's perceived God-given rights to stick their penis anywhere it wants to go without having to ever face any consequences. Of course the dumbest of all men will believe that there's a connection, because they do all their thinking with their penis and it's a narcissist which thinks cockblocking is the ultimate evil and lumps all cockblockers into an Evil Enemies Conspiring Against Me category.

It's fucking tragic and pathetic though when a woman adopts this penisbrained thinking. WTF is wrong with these women? For the love of all that is unholy STOP dividing the political world into cockblockers and non-cockblockers, and start centring women in your thinking.

Can't say I've ever personally seen much in the way of people asking others what they should to think; though I do tend to see quite a lot of other people telling others what they should be thinking, or voting.

I think trans rights might mean the right to redefine any word they want when they want.

Basic queer theory

Family guy had it nailed in one sentence years ago. 'Do whatever you want all the time'.

@Hawkins003 hi my short form answer is this is pseudointellectual bollocks. What that mostly means is saying something, usually something not very original or clever, in such a way that it is particularly and especially hard to understand someone's point but it sounds really clever, often sounding too clever to argue with.

long form answer below

#oxfess23322
Not gonna lie, #Oxhate to the Oxford Union hosting the "Gender Critical" Kathleen Stock later this term.

=. Oxford Union is hosting Kathleen Stock later this month and I'm pissed off about it.

As a trans guy who just wants to live his life with joy and is more than well aware of the increasing Western stripping and dehumanisation of trans rights, the last thing we need now is promotion of such people who actively push back against a minority who just want to live their lives, especially from such a prestigious university.

=. my opinion matters more than other people's opinion particularly and especially more than women's opinions

Trans people are people, we are valid and we deserve respect and not being exposed to such bigotry

We deserve respect => what he/they mean by that is that trans people demand to be treated as an authority. We know what we're talking about, everybody else does not know and will just need to take our word for it. Disagreement is therefore bigotry, no-one has the right to disagree with us.

[Then the response by one commenter was

I don't know much about the whole debate, but then what about the freedoms etc that have been won by certain genders now getting eroded ?

=> I mean women's rights but I've already learnt to be afraid to even say that

Then a person replied in two parts saying]

That isn't really to do with transgender people just wanting their right to live as their desired gender

This is a implied repetition of the 'there is no clash between women's rights and trans rights' assertion. Besides women's rights are not my problem anymore, I just want to get on with being a man now. It is intriguing why women talking about women's rights should be so immediately and loudly denounced as anti-trans if the speaker believed that there was no clash.

- that's more to do with the increasing enforcement of toxic patriarchal ideas

Toxic patriarchal ideas including but not limited to the idea that being a woman is a choice shown by your hair make up and dress choices and nothing to do with your biology perhaps?

and rising fascistic tendencies of the Western world

One of the signs of rising Fascism is indeed an increase in misogyny,

as a result of the weaknesses of democratic systems popular conservative governments

The problem with democracies is that people sometimes vote for people you don't like. The speaker can't really have it both ways if the governments are popular (with the voters in that country) then it is not a weakness of the democratic systems concerned that they were elected.

and men such as Trump

Trump is a misogynist, other men (who could be reasonably be referred to men like Trump) also exist and are also sometimes misogynistic

who then in turn bring along misogynistic allies who stay long after such leaders are gone.

OK, sexist men are friends with other sexist men. When sexist men get into power they give important jobs to other men who are sexist.

This in turn makes misogynists generally more confident to speak their actual mind.

OK, the logic gap is that none of this in any way addresses the question. Professor Stock wishes to speak to defend women's rights. The writer asserts that defending women's rights is an appalling and intolerable attack on trans people. They are asked (in politically sensitive language) but isn't there a problem with women's rights being rolled back, writer says yes but that's not our fault it's Trumps.

Karl Popper's Tolerance Paradox can also be inserted into this conversation

This is "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

What it basically means is that in order to keep an open fair tolerant society there are certain things (including ideas / speech) which you do have to clamp down or stop. I have historically heard this simplified as be cautious giving freedom of speech to people who would take it off you.

From my perspective it would not support de-platforming / cancelling academics or feminists for disagreeing with you at all. That would be relevant ONLY if those speakers were advocating that you be imprisoned, fired, expelled etc. for saying you were trans.

[This was their second part]

And the problem with this is that along with this number of people in politics with misogynist ideas comes a majority of misogynists in law making sectors- think the Supreme Court - that when harmful proposals such as the repeal of Roe Vs Wade are put through a Supreme Court vote, then the more likely that it is that such laws will go through.

Holy hell what a sentence, ok. - Repealing Roe vs. Wade (the supreme court decision that judged that it was unconstitutional to ban abortion in the USA) is bad for women's rights, what it is not is relevant to the question of should it be ok for anyone at your university to listen to a woman you disagree with talk about women's rights.

And the problem with such systems as the jury in the Supreme Court is that once they are elected or chosen, then they are there for the long term and can't be gotten rid of

We are living in the Uk, this is indeed a fact about the Supreme Court. It is not relevant to the question at hand, and you know not the fault of Kathleen Stock.

I really resent the implication that if we object to left wing misogyny we are to blame for right wing misogyny.

I'd like to define the rights that women had and are now being eroded by this horrific movement that has given rise to extreme mysogyny. We used to be able to use language to describe ourselves, a basic right but that seems to be a crime now.

Our life's are being put at risk. When known murderers, rapists and peadophiles are allowed to simply identify as "transwomen" they can be moved to the female prison estate for their protection. Why have these men not been catered for in the male estate. As males their needs should be met amongst their own sex class. We are not human comfort objects.

Sick of the stereotyping being reinforced by this movement, the internalised homophobia which seems preferable to some than having a gay child. From the heartbreak of 'I am Jazz' with the Munchausens Mother and homophobic father to the 1000s of detrans threads it at least seems to be changing a little.

Very very much appreciated for your time and efforts with the detailed analysis

Why not read Prof. Stocks book, Material Girls?

Much appreciated,

I totally second it as a recommendation. It is an excellent book.

"In her commitment to free speech, good-faith debate, clear and careful argument and upholding reason over dogma, Stock writes faithfully in the tradition of the Enlightenment -- Mary Carington"
https://www.waterstones.com/book/material-girls/kathleen-stock/9780349726625

But of course not everyone can buy all the books they want whenever they want them, so I would never want to criticise someone for not having read a specific book (yet). Talking about books and ideas with people who have read them is a perfectly valid approach in the meantime.

Yup.

With the "I'm just trying to live my life" stuff, playing the victim card doesn't get you out of having to have a fair debate over the arguable infringement of women's rights.

With Roe vs Wade being overturned, yes it happened because of the increase in conservative judges, but that tells you nothing about whether it's a good decision or not legally speaking. The new judges can have a bias, and just be correcting a previous bad and also biased decision.

I'm (mis) quoting someone - but this is one of those quotes that stayed with me...
"to imagine that those who object to the sexist bollocks of the left are therefore in favour of the sexist bollocks of the right is to vastly underestimate the amount of sexist bollocks in the world."

Thank you so much for making the effort to unpack this,

Part two of the reply ("And the problem with this...). The comment piles one ignorant mis-characterisation of the US constitutional judicial process on top of another. It is meaningless.

When one questions another's validity based on their characteristics and imposes their world view on that individual repressing their lived experience, and takes away their equality rights.... yes then bigotry comes into play.

Just asking questions. Well it's a dogwhistle. You could just be asking questions about any other minority, as a disguise for an underlying position of inequality.

Bigotry is an appropriate descriptor.

Expecting single sex spaces to be organised by SEX isn’t a ‘dog whistle’ Mish, it’s an absolute-up-front-what-it-says-on-the-tin expectation.

To deny female people single sex spaces because ‘something something trans rights’ is imposing American-style Queer Theory on British Women (OG definition) via cultural imperialism.

And that would be a proper shitty thing to do.

Nobody is questioning anybody's "validity", whatever that means.

We are objecting to the idea that some people should be entitled to use single sex spaces for members of the opposite sex, for no real reason other than because they want to.

Oh and by the way, when you impose your world view that you are a woman because woman is an identity (and not a word for adult humans of the female biological sex) on women who don't share that world view, and in doing so you force them to self exclude from their own spaces, you are repressing their lived experience.

Ditto when you force them to accept you in their sporting categories, meaning that their lived experience can no longer include the chance to compete fairly and win.

This is a good attempt at a clean sweep on the TRA bingo card. Shame you couldn’t get in some genocide and literal violence.

Do you even know what validity means?

Or quite how dystopian your position on asking questions is?

Is that available in an English translation?

@dropthevipers challenge accepted

When one questions another's validity

Trans ideology allows a person to declare what their gender identity is. It also now tends to say that all gender identities are to be instantly accepted with no counselling or gatekeeping (gatekeeping is bad) this makes sense from the perspective of allowing a person to be the expert on their feelings. One problem though is that when a man declares that he feels like a woman he is not setting himself up as the expert of what he feels like but as the expert on what being a woman feels like.

based on their characteristics

Based on their sex i.e. questioning someone's gender identity based on their sex.

and imposes their world view

The trans person has a worldview that gender identity, specifically their gender identity is always more important than biological sex. Another person for example a GC woman might believe that biological sex continues to matter in some circumstances. Mishy is doing a classic reversal. The woman is not imposing her worldview on anybody, she just isn't allowing their (the sex / gender identity of the hypothetical trans person has not been specified) worldview to be imposed on her.

on that individual repressing their lived experience,

The feelings of trans people are important, exactly as important as the feelings of other people. Women are not full time on-call support humans with a duty of care to listen to anyone feeling sad.

and takes away their equality rights....

Well this is certainly a familiar claim. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the equality act, as is sex and sexual orientation. I do not think that that is wrong or wish it to change.

yes then bigotry comes into play.

Not following / believing in someone else's religion is not the same as a bigoted hatred of people who follow that religion.

Just asking questions. Well it's a dogwhistle.

The phrase dogwhistle is used here to compare people who are gender critical to racists. Dogwhistle phrases are phrases used by racists to signal to other racists that they are racist, whilst sounding reasonable to any listening non-racists.

You could just be asking questions about any other minority, as a disguise for an underlying position of inequality.

Bigotry is an appropriate descriptor.

Saying sex matters in some circumstances but I also think you're entitled to 'Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you' is not a thing I'm saying to pretend to sound reasonable. It is how I feel, on the other hand I think consent means informed consent and people should be upfront about who they, are how they feel and what they want from a relationship before they have sex with someone. This does not seem to me to be asking too much and is not placing any additional burden on trans people that I wouldn't place on anyone else.

Saying hair fashion and make-up should be an optional hobby for people of either sex with no-one forbidden on the grounds of their sex and no-one feeling compelled to participate despite the fact it isn't really them. Is not a position I pretend to have to sound reasonable it is really how I feel. Have fun with your style, experiment try new things is broadly advice I'd give all teenagers.

Asking questions like is there a good way to accommodate trans people in sport is not a dogwhistle. Thinking and talking about tricky situations is the best way we have to come to compromises and figure things out. Thinking carefully and talking to each other, and listening to each others perspectives is the opposite of bigotry.

It does throw up issues to be dealt with, transmen taking testosterone won't just be able to switch to the men's team which is why they're so rarely mentioned. People are entitled make decisions to transition but they aren't entitled to expect to be immune from any consequences of those decisions.

So with a trans-racial white person that identifies as black, does that all apply?

If you don't go along with letting them lead a black organisation, then you're a bigot?

And that anyone is taking away real "equality rights" is begging the question here. The alternative position that you have to deal with, is that trans people shouldn't get special extra rights. Identifying as something doesn't normally allow you to claim rights on that basis.

There is nothing wrong with "questioning another person's validity" by the way. If someone claims to be the reincarnation of a famous person, and that's important to their self-identity, I'm perfectly free to question such a claim.

I would say with transgender people, when they take their "no debate" position, that they have given up the right to be taken seriously.