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

[TerfLady]

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?

I would like to have a go at steel man. Can someone ask me a question?

I would like to preface my answers with some information. I wanted to be a boy as a child. Dressed as a boy played with boy toys. Cut my hair off. Played with other boys etc. I thank god I didn't grow up now as I know I would have jumped at trans but I didn't know it was possible to 'transition' when I was a kiddo. I grew out of it. To be a steel man I have imagined the person I would have become had I been born 20 years later with some of the childhood I had but some is definitely fictional

TRAs (although I tend to use TPAs, as what they’re demanding are privileges not rights) or gender ideologues.

I've thought through the race/discrimination argument many times.

"I am in this body by a biological accident and can express clearly that inside I am a person of the opposite sex to the reality of my external body. To reject me from women's spaces because my body is not what you expect is like white people rejecting black people because their skin is different, or able bodied people rejecting disabled people because their body looks different/ is unpleasant to look at."

I can see where someone in distress regarding their physical reality is coming from, and how they hope that others would be able to set it aside and see them as they want to be seen. I really can.

But the sticking point is the realities and practicalities.

This is about SOME people in male bodies being male and other people in male bodies not being male.

There is no way at all to tell the difference between the one and the other.

The only difference is what that male bodied person (who really does not like having their physical reality referred to) subjectively chooses to say to others about their reality. So it is an entirely trust based situation that relies on the other person being willing to risk and trust on their word.

Isla Bryson, Karen White, Katie Dolotowski all successfully used that trust to injure women. Repeatedly.

How can women logically be expected to extend trust and be the bigger person when inevitably this will end up with some being hurt and exploited? I know the argument is not to punish (by witholding access to women in women's spaces) the innocent because some are guilty, but this is safeguarding. How is it ok to ask women to be open minded about sucking up a rape or two so that male people don't have to cope with the distress of boundaries that protect women?

How can women be permitted to be uncomfortable about and protected in law from being vulnerable and in a state of indignity and undress around SOME male bodied people (on the grounds of them being male bodied) but feel differently about this for other male bodied people? How does this logically work?

We're asking women to predicate their feelings of discomfort, distress, need for privacy, personal boundaries, on what a particular male expresses to them is happening between their ears at the time. Women are supposed to unconditionally trust in this. (And not mind if it turns out later that this trust was misplaced and they got harassed/assaulted/hurt, because of the needs of other males.) There is no reciprocity of respect or even interest in the women's feelings from the male person.

How is this ok? Why should a woman's reality and feelings revolve entirely around what a male tells them he wants them to perceive for his benefit? How is this equality or seeing both parties as equally human? Why is this lack of reciprocity and this unequal responsibility of one to provide for another (who is a total stranger) acceptable and just? Where is the woman's right to boundaries on this? What about consent, some women do willingly consent to this, but what about the ones that don't? Are we going to tell women and little girls, you cannot say no to a man about undressing in front of him no matter how upset or uncomfortable that makes you, if he has certain circumstances that mean you are no longer permitted the right of consent? How does that work in terms of safeguarding?

And yes, ok, setting all that aside, what are we going to do with the women who cannot be in a state of undress or vulnerability with a male bodied person regardless of that male bodied person's inner identity? Where is their inclusion and access? What facilities and adaptations are going to be provided for this to work for them if the goal genuinely is a more equal, tolerant and accessible society?

I often wonder this too.

I don't say "gender ideology" because when I run it past my own test of comparing it with religion, it sounds unintentionally offensive IMO.

To explain what I mean by a simple substitute in line with what I've still done earlier in this thread:

"Religious ideology", "Christian ideology", "Muslim ideology"..... All of these sound awful to me as phrases because they have dismissive and cynical tone - maybe also somewhat blasphemous ?? As I've said above, I'm athiest but I would never describe any religion in this way. I appreciate we can say "theology" instead in the context of religion so that one has an easier answer.

Likewise, I don't say phrases like "I don't subscribe to that belief" for the same reason.

Personally, I go for "gender identity", or "a belief in gender identity", depending on the grammatical need in my sentence. It's a belief that some people hold but I do not. I'm yet to try out the second one in a conversation with someone who does have a belief in gender identity, although this thread is giving me lots of ideas about how I could if/when I want to. @CeciNestPasUnPipi I do this too: 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. First and foremost I did it because I wanted to learn about LGBT+ issues and concerns so that I could support my daughter. Now I want to help other (autistic) adolescent girls who are confused about their gender identity. So I'm going to move on to the second stage of how you explained you do it. Thank you so much for sharing as I've found it really helpful.

I'd say ideology because ideology is usually taken to mean not just the belief itself, but the belief that society needs to be structured / organised by that belief.

So Gender Ideology because it's not the belief in gender identity itself that's the problem, it's the belief that society has to reorder itself to centre mental gender and should no longer recognise physical sex as significant or as a source of discrimination/disempowerment/inequality.

Thank you. Trans Rights Activists sounds useful.
it is confusing and some words/labels are quite neutral sounding, which in a way should be a good thing so the discussion wouldn’t be full of insults. But it’s not that clear which ‘side’ they mean.
So gender belief or gender ideology should reasonably be expected to mean a general topic about gender. But really it usually refers to discussions about gender which support the viewpoint that TWAW etc rather than more traditional views about sex/gender being difficult if not impossible to change.

OK, in what way are you a man? What objective characteristics do you share with men but not with women?

@nilsmousehammer , a very eloquent post. Just one bit I'd take issue with: "I know the argument is not to punish (by witholding access to women in women's spaces)".

Women's spaces, OK - I'll agree that if TWA[truly]W then withholding access to women's spaces can be reasonably argued to be a punishment. But nobody - male.or.female, man or woman, however defined - has a right of access to women.

Overall it’s a very hard topic to talk about without putting your foot in it, and difficult to describe your opinion at the appropriate level, whenever you tend towards one side or the other you quickly start getting into very strong territory, it’s hard to stay compassionate and not insulting when defending your view.
the whole topic is so polarised

Yeah this is it. Thing is, to legitimately argue for the massive social change that follows from TWAW, they need to be able to make a rigorous case this is true. But they can’t. Their argument seems to be TWAW ( and there is no need to define what a woman is) because they say they are, and that is legitimate because woman is their inner gender identity ( gender identity is undefined and unevidenced) and only oneself can know what one’s inner gender identity is. And, second core belief alongside TWAW, one’s gender identity can never be challenged by anyone else. ( without arguing why it can’t be).

As pp said. It’s a faith based belief system. And those aren’t inherently circular and self-supporting. Like lots of faith based beliefs in the modern world, they try to apply a bit of scientific evidence, that is always weak and unconvincing ( I’ve seen arguments in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, as well as various alternative therapies/ belief trying to make them ‘fit’ with modern scientific knowledge as proof for the belief system).

Troublingly, and unlike religious beliefs, the secular belief of gender ideology refuses to acknowledge it’s a faith based system.

@JussathoB me too! It's really helping me pull lots of bits in my head together.

To pick up on something you said above that resonated with me:

"Assigned female at birth" was something that jarred with me from the first moment I heard it. It was probably the first example I can recall that made me stop and think a bit more deeply about what a belief in gender was all about.
For quite a while during my explanation I considered myself to be biological female (a woman) and to have a female gender identity (because I felt like a woman, rather than I "identified as a woman". I didn't like that phrase either).

Then over time, and with further reading on this board I started to understand that I didn't have a gender identity at all. This is something that is personal to me. Others may have a gender identity and that's their prerogative too (as long as it doesn't impact policies and laws).

Ok .. why did you think you wanted to be a boy ?

*during my exploration

I really wish there was an edit button here 🤦‍♀️ Also I would have made it clearer that "me too!" referred to how helpful I'm finding this thread.

Yep!

I referenced earlier about a conversation I'd had with a Catholic friend where we respectfully listened to each other's opinions. It was based on what we know about science now versus what we knew when the world's religions were forming. I'm not suggesting recreating that debate here (definitely a derail!) but it was so interesting to see how we could both really listen to another viewpoint yet come away with the fundamental key difference: he still had faith in God and I still did not. We were both happy with this outcome. Instead, with respect to a belief in gender identity, as you say...

Troublingly, and unlike religious beliefs, the secular belief of gender ideology refuses to acknowledge it’s a faith based system.

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn

As a steel man:

I would say I’m a man because I don’t feel I’m a women. My experience of things has been male. I was good at science and maths and useless at makeup and hair. I liked it climb trees and was good at sports. I felt a connection with my male peers we shared interests and how we saw the world. When with girls I felt ‘other’ I knew I didn’t fit that mould. As an adult I enjoy financial responsibility earning and paying for my home, I am the one who does the diy the gardening and changes the tyre when we get a flat. I enjoy wearing clothes that are practical and have pockets and are appropriate to the weather conditions. I don’t get the emotional drama some women bring to relationships.

@JussathoB

Haha. Well to answer WHY I wanted to be a boy I rip my steel man apart.

As a steel man the answer is because I felt I identified better with boys.

As a natal female who grew to be gender critical I would say it's because I wanted the rights and privileges afforded to males and I wanted to escape the oppression I felt as a girl. My parents were very 'traditional' my brother had more freedoms and I was jealous. I resented I had to lay the table and do housework because I was a girl. I was uncomfortable in the male gaze because I was too young and men take liberties not because I wasn't female.

That's why I'm so anti transing children. I have understanding now as an adult woman no child can understand. I'm also autistic which is why I felt other and seeing stats that autistic kids are so highly represented in trans and are actively targeted makes me feel sick

Thinking this through a bit more. I find it hard to 'steel man' GI as I find it really difficult to respect any movement which denies the need to define their own key terms. So to understand GI thinking, I would have to steel man an argument as to why I did not need to define my key terms or concepts. And I don't even know where to begin with that.

I can do that with religion. As religious people can honestly fall back on ' I can't explain that, but I believe anyway as I have faith in God and in his mystery - his ways are beyond my understanding'. I can respect that, especially as in the modern age in the West, religious people are, largely, not seeking to impose their religious beliefs on public policy and law which would affect us all.

But I can't even begin to make a case for not needing to define one's key terms in a movement seeking such deep and real change for society and women and girls in particular. How does one do that?!

P.s. And those aren’t inherently circular and self-supporting This sentence from my above post should have said those are inherently circular and self supporting.

Steel man what is a woman definition:

The mental state of the biological female sex. This is influenced by physical characteristics and gender stereotypes/ societal variations in the treatment of individuals

I think I can defend this

This is one of the best I've seen @PurpleBugz..

I'd throw everything @nilsmousehammer said above at it and then I'd ask you to define the word "womanhood" separately from "woman"... and then once you've done that tell me what a woman is 😁

So does that mean TW who display levels of aggression and violence typical of men are not actually women?

Because I see the GI's making the opposite argument. If a TW behaves like this is it a womanly way to behave as they are a woman. If they feel like that it is a womanly way to feel as they are a woman.

So does that mean TW who display levels of aggression and violence typical of men are not actually women?

I think Bugz has stepped back far enough that she's no longer describing a personality trait, but simply an emotion.

So they can have male behaviour, but experience "female emotions".

(The "personality trait" thing is clearly objectively false, due to the totally sex-typical behaviour you note.)

But that doesn’t work because emotions lead to behaviour. Feeling anger leads to aggressive behaviour. Emotions have evolved in part as short cuts or instigators to behaviour.

So you would have to say, my female experience of anger led to my male behaviour of violence/ threatening rape. Which doesn’t really make sense.

Thank you for your explanation.
I totally get the fundamental feeling that one is a certain gender, I myself have that from the earliest age, and in my case it so happened to match with my biological sex.
However, I suppose in discussion I might say, isn’t it ok to be a female who likes climbing trees. In other words, can’t we have plenty of overlap between male and female, both are allowed to like and be good at the same things? But without having to swap gender?

@BonfireLady
@nilsmousehammer

Working on my response. I'm not a fast typer

Thank you purplebugz I mean

Women's spaces, OK - I'll agree that if TWA[truly]W then withholding access to women's spacescan be reasonably argued to be a punishment. But nobody -male.or.female, man or woman, however defined - has a right of access to women.

This is an extremely good point.

As mentioned in the article released and then released about rights this weekend: if there was a right (for males) of access to women, then logically

a) this suggests that women are not being viewed as autonomous equal humans to males but as a resource for male need

and

b) where there is a right of access there must be a duty of provision . You cannot have a right to women unless someone else provides you with this.

Both of these dismiss women's right to consent in their being used as a therapeutic resource for the meeting of men's needs.

How does this facilitate the equality of women and meet basic ethics and human rights for both sexes?