Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

How gender believers sabotage conversation and debate so their views won’t be challenged

199 replies

TerfLady · 28/04/2023 18:07

Hi there!

I tried to make the title as non-inflammatory as possible but I don’t think that’s fully possible with this topic but I saw a user on another thread make some really insightful observations that I couldn’t ignore about how woke people tend to shut down conversations and debates so they don’t have to have to challenge their own views and I thought it was really interesting!

If you want to get into this thread you might want to strap in because I’m going to get a tad long winded here. Sorry in advance. I thought about doing a TLDR but I don’t tuning it would work for this thread.

If you want to see the comment @Helleofabore replied to @cherryyoga on page 23 talking about her experience being a reformed liberal if you click on this link and how they handled arguments. Sorry I hope you both don’t mind me tagging you.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794270-genuinely-willing-to-discuss-in-good-faith?page=23&reply=125778813

Anyways CherryYoga discussed in bullet points how she was conditioned to handle arguments in the following ways:

-Assume their privilege
-Name call and denounce
-Removed the context (This is the part where they sabotage the conversation/debate so it can’t happen
-Stonewall (anyone whose ever tried to debate a woke liberal I think has experienced being blocked. It’s actually meme worthy at this point.)

Now she goes into this list a lot deeper so I recommend you read her comment because it would take a lot of space here!

I find this pattern extremely familiar and interesting. If we know this pattern it definitely looks from the outside like they just don’t want to talk to you once they discover that you have an opinion they don’t like. Yet there were several people like this expressing their frustration that they could not have a conversation while knowingly or unknowingly sabotaging the conversation. Why is that?

Because you might not know that I’m also an ex liberal and I did exactly word for word what CherryYoga described and I’m now on the other side scratching my head. I remember the frustration thinking the “alt right” just didn’t care. Feeling defeated and thinking conversation just wasn’t possible and then coming out on the other side asking myself why I ever thought that. 😧🧐

The conversation was only impossible because I made it impossible because I couldn’t accept their ideas because I saw them as an attack on vulnerable people. But it turns out that was far from the truth.

I wonder if there are other reformed woke people that wanted to share their experiences if they had arguments or debated this way? Is there a way we can reach them gently without surrendering our values?

Or is it better to just save our breath for the people that are ready to listen?

What are good strategies for poking holes in their “argument” strategies if we feel we must debate them?

Page 23 | Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith | Mumsnet

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 wit...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794270-genuinely-willing-to-discuss-in-good-faith?page=23&reply=125778813

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
Hepwo · 28/04/2023 23:27

Are there any good ones Bint? I quite like that one because it's a trap. Denial is proof. I think it's as good as it gets, the rest are at the lady brain standard of argument which is just funny it's so bad.

OP, the IT job was a trick question as my observation is that many TW are of the personality type found in that sector. A bit of a generalisation but I certainly don't see many with "feminine" careers.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 29/04/2023 00:00

Are there any good ones Bint?

That's the question. You have to try to build one - not find one they use, but make it yourself. Assume their conclusion is correct, then try to assemble evidence and logic to reach and prove it.

(I don’t think it can be done, but it's not an exercise I'm terribly good at. My inner 'That's ridiculous' alarm is distractingly loud.)

Circumferences · 29/04/2023 00:20

TRAs regurgitate mantras. They aren't facts.
You can't easily argue with mythological beliefs.

  1. TWAW
  2. TMAM
<No debate>
  1. The most marginalized, vulnerable, stunning and brave of all people ever
  2. It will never happen (re things that do happen)
  3. AGP does not exist
  4. Some humans are intersex, sex is a spectrum
  5. You can never tell
  6. Everyone is who they say they are
  7. Genital inspections are required to maintain single sex spaces
10. You need to tell everyone your pronouns before you speak

These are the top ten gender ideology beliefs we need to be able to refute because it's beyond insidious how so many people believe them.

WallaceinAnderland · 29/04/2023 01:15

I've tried to see it from the TRA point of view and have come to the conclusion that it all boils down to whether transwomen are actually women.

Now that applies to everything including female sports, changing rooms, prisons, hospitals, all women shortlists, etc.

If you think TWAW then it follows that they must be included in all of the above.

If you don't think TWAW then you would argue to exclude them from all of the above just as, legally and morally, the rest of the male sex are excluded.

And that's the problem.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 29/04/2023 01:22

Yes, that's the point where I run aground. If TWAW, then not only can a solid argument be made for universal inclusion- there is no need for an argument to be made at all. But TWANW, and without that 1 brick the rest of the castle cannot stand.

And I'm unable to make an argument for TWAW, because they just aren't. The science does not support it.

Kucinghitam · 29/04/2023 07:12

IME once you discount the emotional appeals and pious frauds, the main thing I see from TRSOHers who are (kudos) at least willing to keep discussing, is "here's a continually shifting and evolving list of things you aren't allowed to talk about."

NecessaryScene · 29/04/2023 07:28

If TWAW, then not only can a solid argument be made for universal inclusion- there is no need for an argument to be made at all.

Except that you then can't justify the separate class that they're being included in.

What's the point of "women's" sports, or "women's" prisons, or "women's" anything, in that definition? The sex-based definition can justify those.

And how do you justify excluding "men"?

"here's a continually shifting and evolving list of things you aren't allowed to talk about."

And the reason is that, as above, once you follow through on the logic, nothing makes sense any more.

As Helen Joyce put it in her newsletter 55 this week (comparing with letting 1=0 in maths):

The tiny falsehood screws up everything, and the only things it doesn’t screw up are the things you haven’t noticed yet.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 29/04/2023 09:19

Except that you then can't justify the separate class that they're being included in.

Absolutely. By 'universal inclusion' I didn't mean just trans inclusion in women's provision - I meant everyone inclusion. Everything for everyone, all the time. Nothing kept separate for a sex or gender class. Therefore nothing to argue about.

"here's a continually shifting and evolving list of things you aren'tallowed to talk about."

There's a familiar scenario.:

'You're alll so mean talking about A',

'OK, we've also been discussing B- H, would you like to comment on any of those?'

'No! You're a big meanie!'.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 29/04/2023 09:24

(Of course if TW were Actually W in the 'I've taken so many hormones I've grown a whole new set of chromosomes and completely reshaped my biology way' then you could still argue for a separate sex class because they would actually be that sex in all senses. But that's the pesky 1=0 again.)

BonfireLady · 29/04/2023 11:29

What a fantastic discussion you started @TerfLady

I've been reflecting on it so much, along with the original thread that inspired it. It has all helped me realise that I'm confident in my approach and that I'm happy for people to disagree with me. There is no way every person will see eye to eye. But I'm listening and learning from different viewpoints. It's great to take it on board so that I can sense check it against my own beliefs.

@JanesLittleGirl and @Anactor I hope my analogy was OK to use.
I very much understand and respect that a belief in god is about faith and
I love a philosophical and theological chat over a beer 🍻 I once had an amazing conversation with a devout Catholic friend about religion. Each of us understood our relative beliefs/faith and each of us respected that. I came away with a little bit of envy if I'm honest with myself that he felt so grounded (and supported by others in the church community) because of his faith, no matter what life threw at him. I've had to find that feeling and support a different way.

The only reason I used the analogy was to highlight that for me, it's all about belief. Noone can tell anyone what to believe when it comes to gender identity or religion. Instead, each of us forms our own beliefs based on the inputs that we've had and what helps us make sense of the world. Telling someone that their belief is wrong serves no purpose IMO as it simply polarises and stagnates the debate.

As others have said, the nub of gender identity relies on a belief that TWAW and TMAM. I don't intend to challenge this belief because I don't need to. I'm very happy for a TW to say that she is a woman and I will use the pronouns that she asks me to. I will believe that she is a biological man who identifies as a woman. She will believe she is a woman. Incidentally, I draw the line on respecting requested pronouns where the context of using sex-based pronouns is important.

However, if she wants to set policies (work, education, health care) and change laws that are underpinned by her belief, I will not stand by and let this happen. I will actively oppose it and I have already done so in support of my gender-questioning daughter (I won't cover that here, it's a derail). To go back to religion, if someone wanted to set policies and laws based on some parts of the bible, I would also oppose those. If Eve tempted Adam, and until she did he was without sin, does that mean we should have laws which stop women from tempting men? Either with their sexuality (maybe they should wear Victorian clothes and not show their ankles in case it titillates a man) or their words (maybe they should be kept out of parliament and not allowed to vote, as their very influence on decisions will lead to bad outcomes)? Rhetorical questions! 😬

To end back on gender identity, until it impacts the rights and safety of others, it is simply an expression of a personal belief. Biological sex matters and should be the cornerstone of education, health care, policies and laws wherever it is proven to be needed. And there is plenty of evidence that it is needed in plenty of places.

JanesLittleGirl · 29/04/2023 11:43

@BonfireLady Your analogy was absolutely fine.

DemiColon · 29/04/2023 12:42

Steelmanning is a good exercise.

In my experience what you find with gender ideology is that there are several different types of argument being made by different people, and they aren't all compatible. (Even when one person is saying them all which is pretty common.)

So you really need to treat the different arguments separately to see them at their strongest.

Britinme · 29/04/2023 13:14

"BUT there is a massive majority of people who are completely unaware of this and are amazed when they find out what is going on. Others are going along with it because they think it is progressive and have that fear, like I mentioned previously, that if they don't agree, they are the equivalent of homophobic or racist. But they probably feel like there is a compromise which hasn't been suggested yet and are open minded enough to see how illogical some of it is, such as to have men competing as women. in sport."

Exactly this! I had a conversation yesterday with a dear friend who is very supportive of trans people (adults and children) she knows, and is willing to admit that biologically male people shouldn't be in women's sports and prisons, but absolutely refuses to discuss further than that. She considers herself very progressive and I think it would undermine her view of herself to do that. I think she probably hasn't done much reading into the medical consequences of transing.

Anactor · 29/04/2023 13:41

@BonfireLady
Making your analogy was fine - I was jumping in because the second part of the analogy was a bit of a strawman and I think we’re steelmanning.

the nub of gender identity relies on a belief that TWAW and TMAM.

Okay, let’s take this belief right there. If you grew up in Europe, North America or AUSNZ, you might not appreciate how the laws of our secular society have been based on a broadly Christian morality. Christians don’t often need to change laws according to their beliefs, because most laws already take our beliefs into account.

However, the belief that someone born into one sex can in reality be the other sex isn’t a Christian belief. The belief that they can has already required one law change.

What follows from believing one sex can be another? Steelmanning ahead:

You will need provision for changing legal documents, obviously. You’ll require anti-discrimination legislation, because most of the subset of ‘gender misidentified at birth’ were misidentified because of visible differences from their ‘real’ sex. Visible differences have a history of resulting in discrimination.

Someone who is ‘gender misidentified at birth’ will need access to the appropriate facilities for their ‘real’ sex - medical, sanitary and so forth. Those resistant to giving them such access will be displaying prejudice, just as those people in the US who resisted sharing facilities with different skin colours were displaying prejudice. Their visible and physical differences from their ‘real’ sex are not their fault (in fact, they’re the entire reason they were misidentified at birth).

There will need to be laws preventing verbal abuse. Continually referring to someone as the other sex is abusive, as is using the wrong sex pronouns. Again, that they have an appearance inconsistent with their ‘real’ sex is not their fault. Genital differences are also not their fault.

Similarly, trying to segregate those misidentified at birth from their correct sporting category is also discriminatory. Admittedly, many of those misidentified as ‘male’ will find themselves far more highly ranked when placed in their correct category- but there are always important physical differences between sportspersons. This is just another one of them.

Being misidentified at birth may also cause serious mental health issues, especially if a child is forced into behaviour not appropriate for their ‘real’ sex. These mental health issues may require correction with surgery, to adjust the physical body that caused their misidentification into something more compatible with their ‘real’ sex. As with other medical treatments, surgery may need to be performed while the patient is a minor and laws should reflect that.

End steelmanning.

Basically, if you are happy to accept that we can’t tell people what to believe when it comes to their gender identity, then you also have to accept that someone who genuinely believes they are a woman is going to think that - well, that pretty much everything we say on this board is rank discrimination against a minority who simply had the misfortune to be gender-misidentified at birth.

They are also going to work to destroy every advance that women have made as a sex-class in the last couple of centuries, because the very idea of ‘sex-class’ is discriminatory. It excludes those ‘gender-misidentified at birth’. To believe that a certain subset of women are biological men is to discriminate against the misidentified.

Sometimes, what people believe doesn’t really affect us. Sometimes, it will affect us massively, in ways we might not yet understand. My belief is that TWAW, TMAM is one of the ‘affects us massively’ beliefs.

chilling19 · 29/04/2023 16:06

Anactor- very good. I think before the concept of self ID reared its head, women (and society) did indeed allow the small number of 'misidentified' males leeway in regards to single sex spaces, and for these males I worry that because there has been a lot of bandwagon jumping, they are now back in the shadows watching in horror.

Also, I agree with a pp that feeling an instinctive sympathy with anyone who suffers discrimination meant 'being kind' was seen an inherently good thing.

However, my concern is that, unlike this superb thread, there has been a failure of critical thinking skills - defined as being able to look at an issue from several different angles and find a logical conclusion - for example, i am sympathetic to any discrimination that men who identify as women face, but recognise that opening the single sex doorway represents a safeguarding risk because of predatory men, so my solution is let's have third spaces.

I am not sure where this lack of critical thinking has come from. Lack of quality education + the Stonewall juggernaut?

BonfireLady · 29/04/2023 21:18

JanesLittleGirl · 29/04/2023 11:43

@BonfireLady Your analogy was absolutely fine.

❤️ phew!

FriendofJoanne · 29/04/2023 21:21

Excellent steelmanning from pps. I inadvertently seem to have steelmanned for the twaw believers on a blog I’ve been writing.

it’s aimed at social workers and other professionals - I intended it to be a beginners guide for professionals with links to research and other articles. Obviously as a SW I have to be anti-discrimination / value diversity so I tried to lay out tra arguments as neutrally as possible. My reach is tiny but my first commenter left me confused - I couldn’t tell if they thought I agreed with it all..!

Ive edited it a bit since then - if any of you lovely ladies could spare some time to read it n let me know what you think I’d be very grateful

https://gendercriticalsocialworker.substack.com/p/what-is-gender-identity-ideology

What Is Gender Identity Ideology?

20 minute read

https://gendercriticalsocialworker.substack.com/p/what-is-gender-identity-ideology

BonfireLady · 29/04/2023 21:41

@Anactor
This is so insightful. I'm currently reading Helen Joyce's book (Trans) and what you say here really resonates too, around the subject of the "baggage" of discrimination. You're steel-manning was very impressive BTW. Very thought provoking.

It's very interesting what a few PPs are saying about feeling a bit awkward and embarrassed about whether they are as progressive as they thought they were. I went through this too for quite a long time when I first started exploring gender identity. My need to explore it was pretty much zero to 60mph in seconds, because my autistic daughter told me she had realised that she was trans and wanted puberty blockers. I threw myself in to an intense period of research. "Peaking" came midway though it but not before a very uncomfortable period of self reflection about whether I was as kind and understanding as I thought I was. I'm pretty sure I only went through this so quickly because I realised my daughter was being drawn towards irreversibly changing her body when I could see that she was confused about the physical and mental changes associated with puberty. It takes a fair bit of effort to question your own integrity and ethics - I'm not sure many people have enough reason to put in that effort unless something forces their hand.

BonfireLady · 29/04/2023 21:41

*your steel-manning

Grammarnut · 29/04/2023 21:42

Hepwo · 28/04/2023 19:53

You were assigned a woman gender at birth and the fact that you feel no discomfort at being a woman is proof of everyone having a gender identity and proof there is no incongruity in people that have a gender identity that matches their sex.

It's proof. No-one has to prove gender identity because the matches prove it.

We have proof of something existing via it's lack of manifestation in the majority.

You can't deny it exists because you are happy as the gender assigned you at birth. Your body is irrelevant. You are happy being "woman". Which is the feeling of being a woman, not having a female body.

I am a woman. It's not a feeling, it's a whole lot of biology, some of which (menstruation, post-partum depression) impinged heavily on my life and on what I could do. I have a personality that has nothing much to do with my sex. I do not have a gender ID. I am what I am, a woman. It needs no qualifier.

CeciNestPasUnPipi · 29/04/2023 22:19

I've found that the best way to have a conversation with gender-believers is to let them do the talking.

I ask questions; I listen; I'll find a point of commonality - and then disagree on that narrow bridge between our two worlds. I'll keep engaging them, keep asking questions. I will concede the slurs that they throw my way: for example, one woman called me a transphobe because I thought that there should be single-sex spaces. I told them that, to them, I must be a transphobe, which defused the situation on the spot. I wasn't telling them that I agreed with them; rather, I was telling them what they were telling me. To rebuff immediately is to get snared in insanity. To mirror their words is the start of a conversation - and more often than not the best thing that can happen is that we'll walk away agreeing to disagree, but it hasn't descended into a slanging match.

Gender ideology is governed by crowd psychology. Someone who has succumbed to crowd psychology - which often shifts into crowd psychosis - cannot be reasoned with head-to-head. Madness that way lies. If you do that, you identify with The Borg. The Borg is more powerful than an individual and it is impossible to separate someone from it when they are in full flow of their conditioned rhetoric. It's also very easy to be subsumed, until everyone is rabid with rage.

Instead, I'll build a bridge. Because that bridge is the one thing that they might find when they're feeling like they really don't like the land they're trapped in.

JussathoB · 30/04/2023 08:25

Finding this thread very informative- think it’s because posters are trying to explain things calmly.
I am someone who has been surprised and a bit confused to discover just how much support and publicity there is for the TWAW view. So I admit I am not that well informed on it.
I am biologically female and also gender female.
My opinion is I reject the use of the phrase ‘ assigned female/male at birth’ which is cropping up all the time. I don’t feel I was ‘assigned’ my sex or my gender by anyone at birth, I believe I was formed biologically in the womb as female sex, this was obvious at birth fortunately and then through my childhood teenage years and young adult adulthood I have continued to develop my identity which is female biology and female gender as well. Telling me I was ‘assigned’ a label basically I find offensive as it suggests it might be wrong, which in my case I don’t think it is. Other people might find they think they were given a label which is wrong, and that may need attention, but I don’t see why these other people are allowed to suggest to me that my label might be wrong.
In a nutshell I find a single phrase makes me feel ‘ no I disagree’. I feel I can see propaganda behind this phrase - it’s been taken from its original use ( I think when some babies are born with sex development differences ) and is now being used to suggest a range of ideas supporting Gender Ideology. It sounds like a neutral phrase at first sight but actually it’s clearly on the side of the TWAW agenda.
Sorry if this outrages anyone. I try to be kind but I cannot just support views and arguments which don’t make sense to me.

JussathoB · 30/04/2023 08:32

What is the correct way to refer to people who support the idea that TWAW ? Or rather, not the people but that side of the argument? Is it gender believers? Or gender ideology?
I suppose the other side of the argument is called gender critical? Or more negatively ‘transphobic’.

PurpleBugz · 30/04/2023 09:11

Circumferences · 29/04/2023 00:20

TRAs regurgitate mantras. They aren't facts.
You can't easily argue with mythological beliefs.

  1. TWAW
  2. TMAM
<No debate>
  1. The most marginalized, vulnerable, stunning and brave of all people ever
  2. It will never happen (re things that do happen)
  3. AGP does not exist
  4. Some humans are intersex, sex is a spectrum
  5. You can never tell
  6. Everyone is who they say they are
  7. Genital inspections are required to maintain single sex spaces
10. You need to tell everyone your pronouns before you speak

These are the top ten gender ideology beliefs we need to be able to refute because it's beyond insidious how so many people believe them.

That reads like the 10 commandments of gender ideology

PurpleBugz · 30/04/2023 09:13

JussathoB · 30/04/2023 08:32

What is the correct way to refer to people who support the idea that TWAW ? Or rather, not the people but that side of the argument? Is it gender believers? Or gender ideology?
I suppose the other side of the argument is called gender critical? Or more negatively ‘transphobic’.

I think it's TRA. Trans rights activists. And the opposite side is gender critical GC. It's confusing someone else may tell me I'm wrong 🤷‍♀️

Swipe left for the next trending thread