Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

It was clear to me any discussion with Deiji was not going anywhere - they were simply not prepared to discuss fundamentals. They saw any critical questions of sex and gender as being fundamentaly transphobic. All we could talk about was toilet provisiions, and how we could allow TW into women's toilets without making women feel uncomfortable.

It was not accepted that women feeling uncomfortable was a valid or important factor.And we all had to be prepared to refer to ourselves as 'cis' .

I realise Deiji was not prepared to discuss the terms, which is not really in good faith, but it would have been an interesting discussion on trying to find out how they view this to work in practice. But all you get is everyone can use whatever they feel like and just minimalising or dismissing any issues that may arise. I don't know whether to laugh at such naivety to think laws of a country can ever operate on that level of assumption of people always being good, or cry over the miserable failure to see women as deserving some basic measure of respect.

At least it was illuminating for any lurkers

I mentioned above a recent experinece of being in a concert hall which had two blocks of single sex toilets; one disabled toilet and one gender neutral single occupancy toilet. That seemed to be just about right - and proportionate to the numbers who would need to be using them. Interstingly all of the women used to the single sex toilet, eevn though they had to queue.

Hi @NotHavingIt I saw quite a few examples of Deiji saying "let's leave the question of sex and gender aside".

Also yes, I don't accept the term "cis" because I don't have a gender identity.

However, I can totally accept that from Deiji's perspective (assuming I've understood correctly that Deiji has a gender identity), I'm being transphobic. Same as I would presume me denying the existence of God would be blasphemous from a Christian's perspective. I'm an atheist so I would argue it isn't.

I can accept that Deiji may find my views transphobic and I can overlook my own annoyance at the word "cis". It's not how I'd describe myself but it's how someone who believes in an innate gender identity would describe me.

Watching Deiji trying to keep the conversation on one issue (toilets) but being asked to define their terms made me uncomfortable.

Also, I think Deiji did try to see things from a woman's perspective as well as that of a transwoman. Maybe not always as successfullly as some may like but I saw various attempts to do so.

Did you have a view on my third spaces suggestion BTW?

Just seen this. Ignore my question at the end of my last comment 😁 I think we cross-posted.

Sounds promising and very much in line with what I'm thinking too. I think by and large people are respectful of accessible/third spaces.

Hi @sanluca I saw Deiji's engagement differently but I think it's always difficult when people have differing views and beliefs.
I was interested to read their perspective on why gender mattered. Also I thought it was interesting that their interpretation of gender neutral spaces (lots of different toilets for different genders) differed from mine (single occupancy third spaces for multiple needs of accessibility). Perhaps people were talking at cross-purposes unknowingly but it was difficult to pick that up because of some of the different styles of comments?

Sorry, to correct myself here...

Regarding blasphemy. I'm an atheist so I could (not would) argue that me denying an existence of God isn't blasphemy. I wouldn't though. I'd accept that viewpoint could be linked to a Christian's belief. I'd accept it being called blasphemy.

@Catiette please do say if you'd like me to drop the toilet subject. It's a bit of a derail from the original post. However, when I came back to the thread after being out earlier, this was very much the topic in hand.

Toilets are important because we all use them!

Unlike prisons, sports etc which can all be seen as someone else's problem.

Talking of sports a recent sports association actually anonymously asked all their members if they wanted to allow males to compete alongside the females and the response was resoundingly against. Whereas if you ask for hands for or against, people are petrified of speaking up for fear of being outed as hateful. And then driven out, ostracised, reported to their employers etc.

Women are allowed single sex stuff otherwise why have sex as a category in equality law in the first place?

Where it matters, it really matters.

Just realised @sanluca ... I forgot to follow up and ask what you'd thought of my suggestion. We both got as far as the "terms of engagement" bit but not in to the point itself.

Easily done I guess! 😊

Did you have a view on the proposal I suggested?

Agreed! @AlisonDonut

Anyway, on a different note I'm going to self-edit and step away from the specific question I asked. It's not my thread and if I want to get feedback on a specific question, I should start my own thread.

The point I was trying to make (badly I think in retrospect) was that if we're going to have a meaningful discussion, I think each person is going to find bits they don't like. I personally welcomed the olive branches I saw from @Deiji and felt it was a shame that they felt they couldn't stay.

It has always been obvious that from a practical point of view that third spaces, services and open categories are the way forward - if everyone's dignity and comfort are to be respected.

The issue has always been that radical activists are demanding not just dignity and comfort but validation too. And that is, and always will be, the sticking point.

https://www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-a-plea-for-third-spaces-for-transgender-men-and-women

Deiji felt they couldn't stay because at heart they beleive in gender identity and believe that TW are women. They insist on using terms like 'cis' which they must know we reject. They also repeatedly make accusations of transphobia.

At best, in order to be seen to be willing to consider how 'cis women' feel they suggested they were not dead against third spaces, but then went on to list the ways they would never work.

Forget it! There have been so many posters like this over the years. It is pointless.

"No they do not. If a provider wants to keep their toilets single sex, it is well within their right to do so.
The law requires them to prove that this is a reasonable and proportionate aim and they don't have the ability to prove that."

Bull! The well established reasonable and proportionate aim is to preserve the privacy, dignity and safety of members of that sex.

I am just going to correct Deji here.

docs.cdn.yougov.com/74l25pslh3/Internal_TransgenderIssues_220720_final_extraXbreak_FINAL.pdf

The relevant pages are page 13 for where 45% (not this is not more than half) women say that males should have access to female toilets because of their feelings.

Page 17 that figure falls to 34% when the question is re-asked making it clear about surgery.

To say that a 'majority' support males using female toilets is a sleight of hand and it is a dishonest reading. Because there is 21% or 26% who 'don't know'.

In my view, from working with polls like this, I think that Deji should stick with the facts. That the majority of female people in the UK population either DON'T support males in female toilets or they haven't decided.

To try to position this as 'majority' support is wishful thinking . When a female respondent knows that a male has not had surgery, they quickly change their mind to be against inclusion or are unsure. And I believe that if the interviewer made it known that 90+% males kept their penises, then this question would have been answered differently.

What is also notable when you check back on past the last 2 polls from Yougov where this was asked, the number of 'should use' has dropped noticeably.

@BonfireLady - and everyone! Still following and reflecting at length. The different perspectives, approaches and subjects coming up are really interesting. I'd never presume to limit topics of discussion or redirect discussion (as long as everything remains in good faith 🙂 - such a lovely, important phrase, as it turned out). It's especially great to see the different strands developing and interweaving over time (eg. for a while, there was a kind of Team Statistics and Team Linguistics; whereas statistics are SO not my thing - I was looking earlier to check what Hellofabore does above, and didn't catch it - language, ethics etc. absolutely fascinate me)...

@SpookyFBI I'm going to play against type here for a second and say that so far as I'm concerned believing is something else, something more - "mind, soul, thoughts/feelings, I’m not sure what the best terminology is" is entirely reasonable. I mean I can hardly deny human beings have thoughts or feelings and still sound like I've met a human being but for now let's call it a "soul / spirit / essence" An incredibly high proportion of the population of Earth believe in a soul or something very like it, it's the bit of you that would turn into a ghost. It's the bit of you that you could believe had been uploaded into a computer in a Science fiction movie. It's the bit of your loving Grandma that just maybe is still keeping an eye out for you. It is the ghost in the machine. It is the mental model where you feel (just a little bit) like you have a tiny person in your brain pulling levers and pressing buttons to drive the giant robot that is your body.

If you believe in that (whatever precisely you call it) it may well seem an entirely plausible overlay to believe that someone's "soul / spirit / essence" would effect the sort of person they grew up into (are people who do bad things just cursed with a rotten soul right from the start?). Accepting the same facts is a great place to start with any productive conversation, differentiating between what is a fact and what is the interpretation of that / those facts can be a challenging exercise. However I offer the following 2 facts as an example of my point

1. Some people are deeply deeply unhappy with their bodies, sometimes to the point of doing things to damage that body which seems to ameliorate their psychological distress. Some people do feel that their body or a part of their body does not belong to them.

2. Some people are deeply deeply unhappy with the sex that their bodies are, sometimes to the point of doing things to bring that body cosmetically or functionally closer to the sex they would prefer it to be. Which seems to ameliorate their psychological distress at least temporarily. Some people do feel that their body or a part of their body does not belong to them.

3. Gender non conformity is a thing, different societies have different ideas of what transgressing or breaching the acceptable boundaries looks like, different societies have different levels of judgement or sanction for transgressing these boundaries. If a behaviour or mode of dress carries no shock value or censure or penalty it is not actually gender non conforming for your society at this time.

Accepting 2 as a fact and given a belief in souls/spirit / essence - [this person's distress has been caused by the fact that they have a woman soul / spirit / essence in a man's body, or vice versa] would be an interpretation of fact 2 but it is not the only interpretation of fact 2.

Accepting fact 3 as a fact and given a belief in souls/spirit / essence - [this person's gender non conformity has been caused by the fact that they have a woman soul / spirit / essence in a man's body, or vice versa] would be an interpretation of fact 3 but it is not the only interpretation of fact 3.

I can't prove that soul/spirit/essence don't come in 2 shades: pink and blue, or indeed 3 pink blue and purple, or 55 colours, or indeed thousands of shades. No-one else would be able to prove that they do.

The 'my belief isn't a belief it's just facts' line can be applied either way but doesn't tend to help us find compromises or solutions - I'll accept you're allowed to believe that gendered souls / essence / spirit offer the best interpretation of the facts so long as you accept other people are allowed to not believe that that is a thing and to think that another theory offers a better interpretation of the facts.

"I wholeheartedly agree that clarity in the law is vitally important and that all terms must be clearly defined, and to not do so can be potentially dangerous. If the word woman is used when making laws then I agree the word should be strictly defined. I personally think it would be better to word a law without using the word woman. For example, in Australia the parental leave policy uses the term ‘primary carer’. I think this is better that using the word ‘woman’ because it opens the door for families to decide that the father can be the primary carer, thus making it more socially acceptable for fathers to take on more childcare responsibility and ease the load of mothers, which I think ultimately is better for women.

Given that there are always local components to these discussions as well as wider implications speaking from a UK perspective with the standard disclaimer of IANAL.

So far as I'm aware The Equalities Act 2010 was the first time a definition of the words man and women was thought necessary in UK law. It defined woman as "a female of any age" and at that time was thought super clear. Nowadays it isn't hard to find examples of transwoman vehemently asserting that they are female and female is a word that describes persons with the special pink soul / essence / spirit and is an identity word not a biology word.

I’m unsure if there is a legal definition of the word woman in Australia

Apparently - "The replacement of sex with gender began in Australia with Julia Gillard’s reworking of the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. The amendment ordered to repeal definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ‘so that they are not interpreted so narrowly as to exclude, for example, a transgender woman from accessing protections from discrimination on the basis of other attributes contained in the SDA’."

but if there is in your country and there are laws which rely on that definition then I agree that definition should not be changed without careful considerations of the ramifications.

Thanks, I think so, I think that thinking things through carefully talking about them and listening and considering things in the way that they will impact everyone is an essential underpinning of a just functional democracy. Letting people who disagree with you participate in your democracy is not a massive favour trying to stop them is incredibly oppressive.

Are there any specific laws you’re concerned about? Because that’s certainly something that should be getting more attention."

In this country we have 9 protected characteristics given in the Equality act of 2010: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

One 'fight' we are currently pushing for in this country is that the protected characteristic of 'sex' should be clarified to make it clear that the act refers to 'biological sex' this is literally the law that protects women from sex discrimination if sex doesn't exist and female and male are identity words and there are no biology words there is in effect no longer a protected characteristic of sex. No woman wants to believe she'll ever need to bring an action under such a law but I don't agree we can or should give it up. A brief note this clarification would NOT stop a transwoman bringing a claim on sex discrimination if it was shown that she had been (mis)treated / treated less favourably because of the perception that she was a woman. i.e. if she passes perfectly and your boss / co-workers don't know you're covered because they mistreated you (compared with men) based on their belief that you were a woman, if they know or a transwoman does not pass she's covered from mistreatment (compared with men) based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. I think that really useful because it isn't necessary to prove who knew what when.

Another involves the protected characteristic of 'sexual orientation' in 2014 the word Lesbian was defined as a homosexual woman. Homosexual women still exist, but their rights to free association and to live without harassment due to their sexual orientation are not currently being adequately protected due to the words they need to describe themselves and the sexual orientation being redefined. google giggle vs. tickle to see other perspectives but this is an article
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/07/tickle-vs-giggle/

if the word woman (and even female) are identity words not sex based words and the word Lesbian means a person with the pink type of spirit / essence / soul who is sexually attracted to people with the pink type of spirit / spirit / essence and there are literally no approved words to describe a homosexual woman we have returned to the 1950s with 'the love that dare not speak it's name' but somehow actually worse.

Schools and public buildings having a legal obligation to provide single sex toilet facilities is something people have been 'reinterpreting' based on redefined words i.e. this doesn't mean this anymore.

I would suggest that: Sex is real binary and immutable. Sometimes it matters.

But I agree that there is a LOT of sexist bullshit, and yeah I support people's feeling over sexist bullshit. I just know that not all of it is always stupid / unfair. Sometimes there is a good reason to remember women exist.

p.s. sorry spooky for making you wait so long for a response but like you family life makes it demands and weekends are peak rush hours 😁

Watching Deiji trying to keep the conversation on one issue (toilets) but being asked to define their terms made me uncomfortable.

People who have Dejii's beliefs always want to restrict the discussion to toilet the reason being that it is seen as gateway to all other spaces and services -if you cannot deny men access to women's toilets because they say they are women then you cannot deny them access to changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges, prisons, sports.

The blase response to the incident Arabella spoke of which was no-one should have to share a space with someone wanking was pitiful. How are you going to prevent that when the sex that wank are the ones claiming to be women? Dejii also failed to note that this was a transwoman doing this and yet lectures us that there have been no problems with TW using female facilities. There have been and continue to be problems.

Also, I think Deiji did try to see things from a woman's perspective as well as that of a transwoman. Maybe not always as successfullly as some may like but I saw various attempts to do so.

I disagree, they were batting solely for the men, showed no consideration for women at all, women's feelings were ridiculed and roundly dismissed.

Can we remember that it was prisons they went for first, because nobody cares about women in prison and once you get the prisons to change their policies it is easier to use those same techniques everywhere else.

yes I think it is unbelievably obscene as the women in a women's prison; prisoners and guards can't self exclude, they both deserve better consideration

"I disagree, they were batting solely for the men, showed no consideration for women at all, women's feelings were ridiculed and roundly dismissed."

I tend to agree with you GailBlanche

The leverage of using emotionally manipulative words, even without that intention, was very clear. Framing women as 'being afraid of people who look like men'! No that is clearly text book manipulation because some people wish to frame women's rejection of having male's, any male over the age of a child, in their spaces as 'fear of how someone looks'. Even just saying 'they are afraid' minimises the lasting trauma experienced by women and girls at the hands of male people. Male people of 'any gender'. And of course, the deliberate comparison with black women and lesbians for reasons of 'unreasonable' exclusion. No black woman or lesbian is comparative to a male for the purposes of using female single sex spaces.

And maybe that poster didn't understand that it is racist and homophobic to do this, because perhaps they read the words of the extreme activists who use these comparisons and feel that if those people can say them, then they are on the right side of history so it must be fine and acceptable.

This combined with the constant referral to our words being transphobic, the refusal to define words or post evidence (and to misrepresent evidence that was posted) were an indication that this is a person who was not here to seek good faith discussion. Despite telling us so. We have seen this before.

Whereas others have posted with neutral language .

It always comes back to the language, doesn't it...

For the first time, I actually just took a quick look at actual definitions of "good faith", veering unpleasantly into contract law, before making a quick exit and landing on the below. I've not looked too closely at what "The Cato Institute" is, but think this short publication from it is very pertinent indeed as a context to why good faith discussions on this subject are so challenging to sustain. In a sense, we know all this, but I found it weirdly illuminating to see it laid out so clearly in general terms distinct from our particular context. I'll paste a link and the entire contents, as it's only a page.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf

GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say. In many cases, they are working together towards a resolution that will be mutually satisfying. “Good faith” is similar to “good will,” in that you wish the other party well and do not intend harm. Each party accepts the other person as a separate individual with autonomous free will, an independent mind, good and true intentions, and the right to have their own opinions and reach their own conclusions. We see this sort of discussion on display in governmental bodies where representatives of opposing parties refer to each other as “the loyal opposition” or the “honorable” member, and so on. A “discussion” in which both parties are operating in “good faith” can be worthwhile, productive, enlightening, and satisfying, even if no agreement is reached and, in the end, they “agree to disagree.”

BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity, or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will. A “bad faith” discussion is doomed to fail, as one or both person’s rights, dignity, and autonomy are not respected. A “good faith” argument relies on persuasion to try to convince the other person whereas a “bad faith” argument relies on other means, possibly including intimidation or coercion. “Bad faith” arguments in private life are best exited swiftly, and are generally not effective at swaying hearts and minds. In public life, they are best exposed. As Dale Carnegie expressed it in How to Win Friends and Influence People, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” [This adage appeared earlier as “Convince a man against his will, He’s of the same opinion still.” in the notes of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792, by Mary Wollstonecraft.] In general, it is always best to begin a discussion and to proceed with the presumption of mutual good faith, until or unless proven otherwise.

Actually... actually... I sound like I'm, like, 13?🙄