Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith

[beachcitygirl]

Hello.

This is a thread for those who are uncomfortable with black and white and less than civil discourse around self id.

I welcome those with different views but I don't on this thread welcome those who only want to state their firm settled opinion without nuance or discussion that self id is absolutely wrong.

It's my view that there is no point in discussion if mind firmly made up.
I'll respect your legal right to that view but there's not much point chatting about it and pissing each other off.

There are plenty threads of gc women hoping to create more gc women and that's fine.

I'd like this to be a different space. A place for anyone with genuine questions, discussion points and where we all try to be civil and attempt to answer each other in good faith. Anyone who is unsure, let's talk:

My views are that trans women should be treated in every aspect as women and they are our natural allies against misogyny and the patriarchy and that women are more than their biology.

Yes, quite. I can't abide people calling anyone 'scum', for example, which is depressingly frequently used by people whom I know are intelligent and generally compassionate. It signals to me that they have successfully 'othered' the person they're railing at and are using self-justification fallacies.

It's very much possible to strongly disagree with (or even dislike!) others, without taking that step into dehumanising them.

We can disagree strongly with other people, without removing their humanity and making them acceptable targets.

That. A basic, fundamental decency that the whole human rights concept being so vigorously weaponised was founded on.

I always find it so highly amusing that these attempts to persuade female humans to hand over their equality and rights for the furtherment of male freedom and choice (often couched in terms of soothing their distress in the manner of Ms Nightingale) is so very conditional on women being Polite Enough. Kind Enough. Open Minded Enough. Well Behaved Enough. Otherwise the promised enlightenment will be withheld.

And yet those same reproachful, more enlightened and higher beings dehumanise others at the drop of a hat, and the theory is based upon some humans matter and other humans do not, and if you are not One Of Us, then you deserve whatever is done to you.

It's abhorrent. It is one of the things that makes this ideology absolutely unacceptable to me. Women here want answers that work for all. They do not want winners and losers. They do not want any group to suffer or be lesser. They do not want to see any group harmed.

Activists do. There must be losers. It increasingly appears that if women are not suffering and harmed then male people with TQ+ identities have not yet had sufficient demonstration of the love so often mentioned.

And yet oddly I have seen how those activists turn on people of both sexes with TQ+ identities where they share their experience and opinions and it dares to diverge from the orthodoxy of the lobby. It is much worse than 'rat'. 'Uncle Tom' is one of the worst things I have seen said to them.

Which makes it rather clear that it is not at all about activists caring passionately about Trans people - because there is this absolute refusal to listen to or value the entire experience, all the voices on the basis of the characteristic. It is not therefore the characteristic that matters. The conclusion left is that the value is on how T people serve the agenda of the lobby. And that is equally concerning.

I said upthread that I suspected that this OP had been convinced purely using emotional manipulation. It shows in the deep abiding prejudice they brought to the thread, and the FWR board.

It is statements also like this:

“I can't abide the abuse towards a vulnerable minority”.

This kind of statement repeated over and over with a complete lack of coherent argument or factually accurate argument is always an indication of a mind that has been conditioned to believe in something they cannot support with fact.

It is the outcome of emotional manipulation, and a superficial understanding of many aspects of feminism and an ideological belief in gender. And it says a great deal about the person using these statements and tactics.

If they were ‘convinced’ by someone, they were never well informed and well grounded in fact at all. Or there is a reason that needed significant emotional investment for them to be convinced.

I consider myself a reasonable poster, and yet when I asked you what you meant by 'a woman' you finally responded by saying this was just a " dog whistle". Rather than answer that question with the good faith you had claimed, you instead dismissed it.

Yet this is the most fundamental question that could be asked. How can you talk about women, women's rights and about " being treated as a woman" if you cannot even define what you mean. You cannot have a good faith conversation if nobody is clear about the most basic terms of reference.

You cannot expect people to accept everything purely as an article of faith - that is not how reason works. Yet after years of asking the most basic questions it is always the case that trans activits and allies are never able or willing to answer this question, without equivocation.

Once I was told that " women don't exist, they are purely a construct". I could almost see where he was coming from with that - although he was clearly confusing sex with gender. That is one of the other fundamental issues and fault lines in gender identity theory.

Personally, I do believe that sex is more than just about body parts and DNA - I think it fairly obvious that there are some sex based differences, which whilst not universal, are generally observable and measurable. These differences arise from the facts of the body, biology and biological and sexual function - and become sublimated into which eevr channels any given culture makes available or accessible.

You only have to look at the pre-eminence of casual sex in the gay male scene, for example, to see how male sexuality/sex drive operates differently to female sexuality/sex drive. Pure, unconstrained maleness unmodified by female patterns, prefernces and behaviours.

And it is not acceptable to invite people to PM posters in this way. It opens posters who do PM activists such as this up to abuse.

If a poster cannot articulate their thoughts well enough on their own thread, they are not going to be able to do it over PM. But they can better use emotional manipulation to convince you one on one.

Just like it seems this OP was.

I appreciate your looking out for me thanks. Insults don't bother me, especially from random people on the internet. I don't want a copy thanks, but I like threads to remain as intact as possible so people can see what was said.

I find insults very revealing. They are usually made without thinking, bypassing the calm logical part of the brain, and for that reason I think they give some insight into the person making them. Confession through projection. The cornered rat comment for instance struck me as saying that the OP felt like they were cornered by all the comments. They bit off far more than they were ready for.

I think what really dissapoints me the most is that having been here a while is I think anyone could come in good faith and make proper arguments, and would get a really good response from the regulars. I also think the regulars would love a decent debate on the merits. It would be great. But that's never what we get. These OPs always start exactly the same:
Try and impose limits on what can be said. "I don't want to hear xxxxx".
"I'm here in good faith" instead of just actually arguing in good faith.
There always a little condescesion and smarm at the end, looking down on the terrible TERFs. I think this is purposefully designed to elicit a negative response, so this can be used as a reason not to engage with the questions. They always focus on any gnarly responses so they don't have to engage with the difficult questions. "I'm a victim here". For god's sake is feminism not about lifting women out of victimhood, don't be actively seeking it!

I'm even thinking of doing it myself. I love to play devil's advocate against myself and try and argue against my own strongly held points of view. I'm going to try and work up an argument against the GC point of view and start a thread about it. It won't be easy but I think I can see a few cracks that I might be able to lever into some good debate. I'd like to encourage others to join in when I do.
No argument on any subject is perfect. There are always strengths and weaknesses. I genuinely believe that to argue against your own point of view makes you better at debate. You can identify the weaknesses in your own point of view and understand them better.

Your point on the dehumanization is important. Again it's a forced way to avoid the real issues. The TRAs are fullblown on dehumanizing TERFs ( I see TERF as a reclaimed term, I hope I don't offend anyone by using it, I see myself as a TERF but oddly enough not the RF on the end. A better acronym for me might be TRAO Trans Rights Activist Opposing ). There's literally been posts from TRAs saying TERFs are not human, thus violence is justified.

I confess, I had no idea there was a secret code in cherry pie? It was pie they said not cake, wasn’t it?

That went right over my head.

@NotHavingIt Great post. It made me think of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry.

I'm even thinking of doing it myself. I love to play devil's advocate against myself and try and argue against my own strongly held points of view. I'm going to try and work up an argument against the GC point of view and start a thread about it. It won't be easy but I think I can see a few cracks that I might be able to lever into some good debate. I'd like to encourage others to join in when I do

Please do this, I would love to join.

@lechiffre55 Yes please do this, I would join too.

I'm going to try and work up an argument against the GC point of view and start a thread about it. It won't be easy but I think I can see a few cracks that I might be able to lever into some good debate. I'd like to encourage others to join in when I do.

Yes! I was thinking of starting a Steel Man thread too! Please do - let's set MN's finest the task of actually making the best arguments we can... 😀

“lechiffre55”

I too would love to see a real good faith debate.

I am always disappointed though when prominent people, some of them highly intelligent, debate. Because it always comes back to emotionally driven arguments.

How can it not? There is no proven science. It comes down to queer theory and po mo. It comes down to philosophy where someone believes they are something, therefore they are that something.

When the arguments rely so much on denial of material reality and finding theories to support this, there is no strong debate to be had. Which is why those who state they have found the middle ground flounder too. Because all they have done is plastered over the lack scientifically proven facts to ‘be kind’. They think if they believe nothing will go wrong and deny that there are conflicts and harm has already been done that that wonderful belief will stand true.

But it was always based on lies.

@lechiffre55 I think that would be interesting too.

On the subject of dog whistle - I can't for the life of me see how the question "what is a ........" can be in anyway coded or suggestive language to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. (Wikipedia description of the term).

The description of this question as such really underlines the association between this trend of silencing and shutting down logical debate with the critical theories that Helen Pluckrose speaks on in her book Cynical Theories (with James Lindsay). It is an attempt to stop people thinking, it is proper scary stuff.

beachcitygirl

My views are that trans women should be treated in every aspect as women and they are our natural allies against misogyny and the patriarchy and that women are more than their biology.

okay, so your transwoman should be subject to random sexual harassment in the street, at school, at work, from puberty on.

Your transwoman should experience pain and discomfort and mood swings one week in four from puberty on.

Your transwoman should have an expectation of being paid less than many people with lower skills and fewer qualifications because those people are not women.

Your transwoman should have an expectation of being talked down to and often silenced in public.

Your transwoman should know that being pregnant, in their own body, with all the discomforts and dangers attendant on that, is part of the package, that raising the child that results will be their primary responsibility and that society will judge them, personally, for anything that child does or experiences that is viewed negatively. otoh, if they opt out of childbearing in their own body they will be judged for that too.

Your transwoman should have to negotiate life in a word where ca half the population is people who are ca 15% larger, physically stronger, and far more aggressive than they are.

Your transwoman should know that complaining about this may result in their being attacked by more of these larger aggressive people.

Your transwoman should know that suffering violence from one of those larger aggressive people may result in their being offered a hostel place sharing a room with another larger aggressive person.

Your transwoman should know that if they drift into substance abuse and addiction as a result of that, there will be larger aggressive people in prison too.

Your transwoman must accept that most medications and many medical procedures have not been fully tested for their safety.

Your transwoman must accept that many many everyday objects, from car seat belts to lawn mowers, are designed for people ca 15% larger and will be hard to use, and sometimes dangerous.

Your transwoman should know that in late middle age they will endure about a decade of physically and psychological traumatic changes in their bodily functions, affecting hormones, bones and other systems.

And that complaining about any of this will draw forth derision from most of those larger aggressive people, and that some of those larger aggressive people will express that derision by dressing in clothes designed to mock the transwoman, adopting a name that demeans the transwoman, and will threaten the transwoman with charges of bigotry and with actual violence if they object.

You know what? Your transwoman is never going to experience that, because biological sex is real, and pretending it isn't won't make it go away.

So maybe your transwoman should accept that being one of the larger, more aggressive people is a fact, and that if they want to oppose misogyny and patriarchy they should stand to their own feet to do it.

I think this is very much a zeitgeisty type of position now. See also Mary Harrington....

As the OP argued feminism has, up until recentl,y been predicated on there being no sex based differences; that everything is culturally or socially constructed. Following that line of thought suggest transgenderism and transhumanism makes sense and is a natural and liberating outcome.

For many of us though, it has actually alerted us to the fact that there are sex based differences, and that these differences are highly resistant to ideology or utopian theory. why not make peace with these differnces and find a new way forward which honours them - whilst not artifically imposing them on those that don't conform.

Patriarchy is certainly still in operation in many cultures and societies, and is state sanctioned; but in the West I suspect that we have come pretty much as far as we can in terms of levelling out the playing field - short of gestating babies in state run laboratories ( which is coming soon.......and frankly very scary). When sex is denied it ends up being women that get erased.

@DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry 👏🏼🔥

I do feel I should expand this for anyone truly thinking there was hidden meaning in the cake references... (Although if there are actually hidden references in cake they have on multiple threads gone over the top of my head as well!)

We were waiting for the OP to return to inform us of what a woman was so that we could all continue with the actual purpose of the thread. As is the way on here given half a chance the conversation goes to food.

The posted conversation had been about lemon drizzle cake (carried over from previous cake discussions on a different thread during a different lull in posts). But I hate lemon drizzle cake so asked for cherry maderia and as a bonus got an actual cherry cake recipe sent to me. No cherry pies just good old cake)

The only thing i could come up for the OP, who changed cherry cake to cherry pie in order to be insulted, assuming something that wasn't meant was memories of a bad American film where the character sticks his dick in a pie. But I thought that was an Apple Pie. And even Then I'm not sure what we would be trying to convey secretly with that.

I'm annoyed as the cake posts are literally the regulars making their typical use of a lull in a thread. Had the OP come back ignored the interlude comments and just carried on and actually answered some of the questions they had been asked the thread would have continued back on topic.

So for those lurking on here cake is just cake. We don't have a secret language on here. We just like food. The cheese posts the other month were excellent!

Anyone else also always suspect of people who declare they were ‘gender critical’ (I don’t use this label myself) once before they really understood and now support ‘anyone can be women’ argument?

It always seems to be people who are immediate and free using dehumanisation, derogation and dismissiveness towards people they perceive as being ‘on the other side’. It seems to be people who believe they have a moral superiority to others.

But the arguments never are supported by robust thought and ability to answer nuance. Never verified fact.

They seem to follow the same patterns. I could speculate more about what drives them, but I think most posters and readers will connect the dots so I will leave it at that.

There are also, of course ,uniquely positive experieneces that only women can experience.........and those experiences stem from the female body and its functions - and as such cannot be accessed by TW.

@NotHavingIt Yes, absolutely. I had vaguely accepted that the sexes were 'different' but had not really thought about those physical differences deeply and their impact on behaviour/experience until transgenderism/gender identity ideology started to take real hold in society. It felt somehow anti-feminist to really acknowledge the differences between men and women. Now I understand that doing so is vital to fighting sexism and misogyny.

Yes!!! ^^

That's where I'm at too. Also Meghan Murphy has said pretty much the same recently.

https://open.substack.com/pub/meghanmurphy/p/why-i-moved-away-from-feminist-the?r=clsg2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

I organised a cheese night on the back of our cheese discussions. It was very inspiring!

All very good points.

Important to add, as with women swapping cake ideas and recipes while waiting for a poster to come back, there is no secret, evil agenda beneath this . No broomsticks.

No one is denying that TW have their own unique crosses to bear, simply that these are part of the TW experience and not part of the woman experience.

If I say that women are not and can never be TW, and it is dismissive and disrespectful of the realities of TWhood to suggest that a female born person could be a TW and experience exactly what they do, or claim to fully understand it, there will be no arguments from any side.

If I then say and so by logical extension no male born person can be a woman and experience exactly what they do, or claim to fully understand it, there will be those who immediately shout 'burn the witch!'.

Which leads me straight to the hypothesis that the difference is binary sex based, and it is the insult of limiting and presenting boundaries to male people's emotional freedoms that is the issue, rather than a difficulty with actual truth and logic.

It felt somehow anti-feminist to really acknowledge the differences between men and women.

I think there is a lot in this. When I was TWAW, some of it came from a combination of naivety and genuine idealism. I had an idea that a utopian society would be one where the sex classes were not significant - because that instinct to put women and men in separate categories is what causes oppression of WAG, right? If we could only get to a point where no one noticed sex, then all our feminist problems would be solved - and what we should do, therefore, is act as if we had already got there. If every body was an individual and we refused to acknowledge the groupings it might fall into (race, sex, ability, age) then we would act equally to everyone and boom, oppression would have disappeared.

I mean, clearly this is bollocks - it's the same as the often-mocked 'I don't see race' trope, and also does not at all engage with physical reality - and now I am deeply, deeply suspicious of any social justice movement which tells me to be less observant of reality rather than more. But I'm not sure it's internally inconsistent, only rather foolish.

We just like food. The cheese posts the other month were excellent!

Also this.