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

If you can hear the dogwhistle, Mishy, you know what that means, right...?

@MishyJDI likes to pretend they don’t know the difference between questioning the validity of a person (which is a pointless thing to do) and questioning the validity of the claims someone makes (which is not just fair game but actually advisable in most circumstances).

Like many similar posters, the crucial difference between the two is inconvenient and must be ignored or evaded. They want to pretend that not just taking what someone says at face value is a rejection of them as a person and an attempt to somehow eradicate them. And that is not just bigotry. It’s genocide. 🙄

Ironically, all while ignoring the simple fact that these same posters utterly dismiss women’s accounts - based on their ‘lived experience’ - that they require single sex spaces or do not recognise the basis on which trans women are claiming to be women. But, that’s just women. Our perspectives are automatically unimportant. Unless, of course, it’s conveniently aligned to what they want.

Questions should only ever be directed against your enemies. Questions about your own position must be resisted and demonised. In fact, you don’t need to question us awful TERFy types; you can just outright dismiss us on the basis that you perceive us as ‘TERFs’ or ‘GC’ or whatever your preferred dehumanising and delegitimising insult masquerading as a description might be.