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. 😀

Yeah sorry no idea why that happened - it's not sensitive really.

Hi I'll dive in to give spooky a moment of respite -

spooky believes that the spirit / soul / essence / mind of a person can be gendered and is the source of their sense of gender identity. She isn't entirely comfortable thinking of this as a belief rather than a fact as sometimes we make it sound a bit too religious for her comfort. But she has come around to the point of accepting that from our perspective it is a belief that she holds and one that other reasonable and good natured people perhaps do not share.

Largely there is a bit of agree to differ pact on the whole let's not try to settle the question of what is the precise nature of people's soul/spirit/essence as it's all a bit ineffable really. And an attempt to move the conversation in the direction of fair and reasonable policies in a world where some people do believe that and some people do not.

spooky please do correct me if you don't think a fair summary or would prefer to put it in your own words.

When it comes to agendas...it wasn't feminists that hired the World's Biggest Law Firm to advise them on how to slip laws past an unsuspecting populace.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document

None of this is being done to us in good faith. Which is why we cannot have a good faith discussion about any of it.

Just caught up on today's contributions and ended up typing the looongest post ever! You've all really got me thinking. I'll post in stages. Apologies for this...😄

Just got in from a full-on day at work and catching up. I think, ideas aside, what makes this thread really fascinating is that it's drawing out and interrogating the reasons that a good faith debate is so difficult - and, yes, sometimes exemplifying them, but, in those instances, demonstrating in real time how the bona fide brass tacks of respect and empathy can still go such a long way! It's wonderful to see people re-evaluating some of their views eg. PurpleBugz on bathrooms (I think - I hope I got that right, Bugz!)

@SpookyFBI, your posts have opened my eyes, too - especially with regard
to your previous perceptions of GC feminists. It's quite revealing of how far
apart these two opposing "sides" are when I realise that, prior to reading your posts explaining your own experiences, I found it genuinely hard to believe that people could think such things of, for example, the GC feminists engaging with this thread - of me, for that matter! I realise now that I'd been, unintentionally complacently, tending to assume that perspective derived from either extreme naivety or cynical cynical strategising in the name of "the [perceived] greater good", and driven by emotion more than reason. None of these explanations could possibly relate to you - I mean that wholeheartedly - and recognising
this has made me realise that I'm actually the one who's been a bit naive, or
cynical in my assumptions about why others may think as they do! I like to think of myself as empathetic, but could have done better here. Recognising this will, I think, in turn, will help me to understand opposing views better from now on...

@BonfireLady, I found your comments on the background to your views on this
very moving indeed - thank you for sharing these. FWIW, I'd see your honorary
barrister designation as flattering - your fair-mindedness is also reminding me
to step back and reassess views I was quite confident in previously. I'm
continually monitoring the way in which my thoughts on this topic are developing, double-checking my facts, questioning myself - but some of your
posts reminded me of the importance of returning to reevaluate even my most
basic beliefs, to continually check they still hold up in a rapidly changing
landscape, and, more importantly, to make sure I understand and can articulate why I think what I do.

With regard to this, I've been thinking especially about the fundamental barrier of two different languages, based on different value systems, preventing communication and common ground, my own beliefs regarding this, and ways forward.

I wondered if an addition to Margot's list would help: Group 4 - accepts the
reality of sex, accepts the legitimacy of gender, in which "legitimacy"
is understood in the same sense that it is entirely legitimate to hold a
religious belief one may not share. This requires each side to make
a concession they feel is detrimental to their interests (the one accepting
sexual difference, and the other accepting gendered values). I know there are
huge issues on both sides with regard to this (and it's likely a sweet little
pipedream in any case!), but it moves us closer to the mutual understanding and respect required for meaningful communication.

I think many people on both sides are already there: people on this site are
almost invariably sympathetic to people with gender dysphoria, and respectful
of those with a strong sense of gender identity, we're just resistant to the
latter being imposed on us; and there are many transpeople respectful of sex as well.

This is where I think the government and media have desperately failed us. With more considered communication (as opposed to emotive soundbites and shameless bias), institutions such as the BBC could have modelled this approach and opened up routes to more respectful debate.

I think it's because this hasn't happened that feelings on both sides run so high - misinformation and misrepresentation fomenting misunderstanding and
resentment.

However, I do also have to say that there are some concessions I began this debate unwilling to make and, after some soul-searching (ref. posts 1350-1400 or similar for metaphysical reflections on the existence thereof 🤔), I do struggle with @BonfireLady's admirably practical readiness to compromise on certain terms of engagement. You had me wondering, Bonfire, why I, in contrast (I think: I hope - have been skimming, so if I misrepresent you, sincerest apologies and please put me right!) am unwilling to accept, for example, that suggesting transwomen aren't women is transphobic. I think this is because this wouldn't be only respecting my (debating) opponent's perspective, as good faith requires, but respecting a value judgement - and language - that posits I'm, myself, unethical or bigotted or worse. This would be extended my good faith to an extent that I'd be releasing "the other side" (again, in the sense of a debate) from any obligation of good faith towards me,* *themselves.

I think it would also be doing an injustice to victims and targets of genuinely
phobic attitudes and behaviours by contributing to the problematic degradation of our shared language that we see in, for example, "literal
violence" and feeling "unsafe". The religious analogy may help here: wouldn't accepting the very premise of my argument as transphobic be akin to an atheist accepting the label "infidel" or "heretic" in a debate on religion?

Something else I've been thinking about (and well done if you've got this far; I've been typing so long you've probably all moved on to Nick Cave or jaffa cakes by now anyway!) is why I do still, in the light of all the above, feel so strongly that the redefinition of woman, lesbian etc. is wrong, and, given this, the way forward. A few things came to mind.

1. Social media has accelerated, and maybe distorted, the "natural"
   evolution of values and language. Until recently, the exchange of information
   at this pace simply wasn't possible, which surely didn't just enable, but
   forced, deeper consideration of such evolving issues? On the other hand, not
   everyone would have had the same access to the debate...

2. I think, given that I can at last acknowledge that, despite the undeniable
   reality of biology, what we have here is a set of conflicting value judgements
   about how to order our world. Yes, we feel our argument is stronger because,
   well, biology, reality etc.(!), but how to present that convincingly to
   "opponents" who may deny both...? I think Maslow may have the answer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs).

He offers a clearly prioritised "objective" (in the sense of preceding all of this furore and being generally respected) hierarchy of human needs, without which the subsequent, "higher-order" needs become impossible, if not redundant.

My thoughts (for what it's worth, and the few lone survivors still crawling through the desert of my waffling...)

Physiological needs are the base of the hierarchy. These needs are the biological component for human survival.

We simply can't deny the centrality of sex to reproduction. It's a thing, people. We need to cater for it. Additionally, trans people people need good health care. For some this may mean transitioning physically, but all our our advanced understanding of medicine should be applied to do so safely.

Once a person's physiological needs are satisfied, their safety needs take precedence and dominate behavior.

This is why no one's going to convince traumatised women wary of male bodies to embrace these in her space. Maslow explains that, whether or not this shows a moral failure on her part (we, of course, would argue Hell, no!; Nancy Kelly etc., not so much). Meanwhile, transpeople need a number of enclosed proportionate third spaces. I don't accept that this isn't realistic: we did it for women and the disabled, we can do it for transpeople. I'd pay higher taxes to facilitate this.

After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third level of human needs is interpersonal and involves feelings of belongingness.

This is where things get tricky, but if physiological and safety needs are addressed as distinct, practical considerations, in their own right, free from the complicating influences of high-level needs such as validation, we'll already have reached a point where both GC feminists and transpeople feel less alienated and more catered for than currently. This is also, surely, where the importance of clear communication comes in. And it's possible, right? We're doing it, after all!

Then, we have:

Esteem needs - esteem is the respect, and admiration of a person, but also "... self-respect and respect from others."

Cognitive needs - people have cognitive needs such as creativity, foresight, curiosity, and meaning.

Aesthetic needs - after reaching one's cognitive needs it would progress to aesthetic needs, to beautify one's life.

Self-actualisation - this level of need refers to the realization of one's full potential. Maslow describes this as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.

I find it fascinating that this is all the way up here in the metaphorical pyramid, only possible when the preceding foundations have been laid. Is this part of why we're struggling so much as a society, now? Wealthy liberal democracies have begin to take the lower tiers for granted, our uniquely privileged position in the - well, history of humanity, more or less?! - encouraging an unhealthy introspection detached from concrete reality, as reflected in po-mo subjectivity? I posted upthread about the ways in which gender identity, unlike gender dysphoria, is surely the product of the interplay of an infinite number of factors unique to each individual... Unlike the genuinely dysphoric, who are, in a sense, wrestling with deep-seated physiological needs, unable to climb the hierarchy to live a meaningful life without resolving this, I think I'd suggest,
tentatively, that some people's perceptions of their gender relates to
this, less fundamental, tier.

OTOH, I'm interpreting this through the lens of GC bias, so... [is there a shrug emoji?]

Transcendence needs - Maslow later subdivided the triangle's top to include self-transcendence, also known as spiritual needs... When this need is met, it produces feelings of integrity.

I also find it interesting that something used to shape and define the very fundamentals of human existence - the spiritual, faith, organised religion - seems to be right up here in the pyramidal clouds. I actually worry that my confusion here may be a glaring sign that I'm fundamentally misunderstanding aspects of Maslow (no psychologist or sociologist - just a layperson in this area), so would be interested if someone else could explain it. But with the proviso of my probably-very-superficial-(mis?-)understanding of all this, though, and in anticipation of later embarrassing clarification by someone more knowledgeable, I may tentatively suggest that the placement of transcendence here parallels the popular GC analogy of gender ideology (the bold's important) as taking on the status of an effective religion in society, and its position on the hierarchy of needs explains our concern and frustration at this being used to re-write our laws and social contract - to do this from the shaky heights of the pyramid, at the expense of the important foundations further down, is, we would argue, no foundation for a stable society...

But, again, this is very much a GC interpretation of the hierarchy of needs. And almost certainly an embarrassingly flawed one at that. Would be fascinated to hear alternative, competing (and more informed) views!

Aaaaand breathe!

I think I've mentioned before I use the threads I do contribute on to work out my own thinking.

But I've a feeling I may just have won some kind of Mumsnet prize, and possibly not a good one. If my mass posts are very bad form, please tell me and it won't happen again.😟

Also (and I really should have begun with this), please feel not the slightest obligation to read or reply!

I'm glad someone else has said this.

I read "conservative parties" not as "the Conservative Party currently in government in the UK" but as "right wing parties in general".

In the US, the Republicans are referred to as conservatives, but the Democrats never are, despite the fact that the Democrats in the US are not actually all that different to the Conservatives in the UK.

I am not and have never been a Tory voter. But the Tories are not actually all that conservative. Up until, I would say, the David Cameron years, they were fiscally conservative, for sure. But in terms of their social policies, they are quite big on personal freedom. Obviously they aren't a hive mind and the party includes some dinosaurs like Jacob Rees Mogg. I also do think they court the racist vote with Brexit and some of their immigration policies. For what it's worth, I think that is more because they think these are vote winning policies than because they have a strong personal belief in them. But the current Tory party legalised gay marriage, after Labour had failed to do so during their 13 years in power. They have no plans to restrict women's access to abortion. And a lot of the "trans women are women" stuff has happened on their watch. So I think they have historically been fiscally conservative, although perhaps not so much anymore, but socially they are fairly liberal. I don't think there is anywhere near as much clear water between them and Labour as Labour would have us believe.

In the US, on the other hand, they don't have the right and the left, they have the right and the further right, or the populist right. The Democrats could have enshrined women's right to an abortion in federal law. They didn't. They could have given all women the right to paid maternity leave. They didn't. They aren't making any moves to set up a universal healthcare system or restrict gun ownership. In many ways the Democrats are still to the right of the Tories.

So when you accuse gender critical feminists of voting for conservative parties, you need to be clear about who you are calling a gender critical feminist, because it is not a synonym for "hates trans people", and also which conservative parties you believe they are voting for. Nuance matters.

What I think probably is true is that the Tories in the UK are capitalising on gender critical beliefs for their own purposes. But their agenda is not "anti trans". Their agenda is "winning more votes". They have seen that Labour has left a wide open goal and they correctly believe that taking a gender critical approach to the question of what a woman is is currently a vote winner. Not among those who would vote for them anyway, but among those who wouldn't normally vote for them.

That's not anti-trans. That's just politics.

Annoying post #4 typo:

1. I think, given that I can at least acknowledge that...

(I'm a pedant...)

Like catiette I've been trying to catch up with the thread, @BonfireLady thanks for sharing your story. @SpookyFBI keep up the good work (as and when you want to), I think a pp said don't feel pressured that you personally must solve every problem / element of this right now.

I'm smarter than the average bear and have been wrestling with this for a long time and I don't think I've got solutions to every issue that will keep everyone happy. I'm not sure everyone being happy is on the cards, so reasonably fair respectful to both sides solutions that work are what we're perhaps aiming toward.

I think in terms of laws / public policy we need to have words that everyone agrees are biology words and words that are universally understood and clearly defined to talk about gender identity. I acknowledge that I have a bias and would personally would like Man and Woman to be / remain biology words.

I strongly believe that the concept of adult human females remains an important enough group to deserve our own word.

I do believe that homosexual women deserve to be able to have their sexual orientation recognised and respected but it is possible that if women was accepted as a biology word that might be enough to have a workable solution

@MargotBamborough I agree with you about US political divisions being quite different from the US to the UK

Thank you for the lovely words that you said about my and my daughter's journey (and @howdoesatoastermaketoast I saw and appreciate your comment too) and also the feedback on my BarristerVoice. I briefly thought about a username change to reframe it and own it with pride 😉

We're all here from such diverse backgrounds and cultures, often with such diverse back stories as to how we got here. That's all going to have an influence on our viewpoints. Even though this is a UK platform, it's one of the only places in the world where things can be discussed this way.

It may not be to everyone's taste but I've found the benefit in securing a better outcome for my daughter through #BarristerVoice (too much? 😂) gives me a perspective on how I want to approach the whole difficult subject.

I've been off work today so have continued my intensive MNing, thanks to this and the other thought provoking (steel-manning) post. It's been quite a full-on ride but very worth it. I'm glad you created this thread.

Yo, long posts are fine, OP. It's one of the advantages of Mumsnet. Lots of space to stretch out if you want.

Group 4 - accepts the reality of sex, accepts the legitimacy of gender, in which "legitimacy" is understood in the same sense that it is entirely legitimate to hold a religious belief one may not share. This requires each side to make a concession they feel is detrimental to their interests (the one accepting sexual difference, and the other accepting gendered values). I know there are huge issues on both sides with regard to this (and it's likely a sweet little pipedream in any case!), but it moves us closer to the mutual understanding and respect required for meaningful communication.

Yeah, this would be good. Unfortunately I am not sure it's possible. Some of the things that are being requested of women require us to either speak, think, or act in ways that are to our detriment. This is true. I can't accept increased risks to women (or children). I can't accept the exclusion or self exclusion of women in public life, the sacrifice of women's sport, the teaching children that they can change sex. And in fact even outwith women's rights, there are some things - compelled speech, thought-terminating cliches, the insistence on unfettered individualism to name a few - that lead me to believe that this movement is not just a 'difference of opinion' but an actually harmful force.

It's based on control, power, and subjugation. It's anti-science, it's illogical, it's an extremist version of 'queer theory' that actively seeks to destabilise and damage society.

I am sure there are people who don't agree with these points, but given what I've seen of this movement, how its expressed, how it operates, how cruel it can be when it comes to dismissing women, the contempt with which it holds, say, religious women, the attitude to lesbians ('sexual racists'? JFC), the homophobia, the regressive stereotyping, the aspects of paraphilias that are woven through it, the Eunuch debacle, etc, I don't know that I can accept 'gendered values' if doing so produces all of these effects. And it certainly appears to.

There's a defanged version of 'trans' and 'gender' that might suggest it's all about rejecting stereotypes and celebrating different 'gender expressions', and I'm sure that would be fine, and it's what feminists have been banging on about since year dot anyway.

But I doubt, somehow, that the hardcore activists would accept this.

I wondered if an addition to Margot's list would help: Group 4 - accepts the reality of sex, accepts the legitimacy of gender, in which "legitimacy" is understood in the same sense that it is entirely legitimate to hold a religious belief one may not share. This requires each side to make a concession they feel is detrimental to their interests (the one accepting
sexual difference, and the other accepting gendered values). I know there are huge issues on both sides with regard to this (and it's likely a sweet little pipedream in any case!), but it moves us closer to the mutual understanding and respect required for meaningful communication.

Maybe I need to clarify what I was referring to when I came up with those groups, @Catiette. From my point of view, these different possibilities are what each of those groups believe in terms of what a woman is.

So Group 1 believes that a woman is a person of either sex whose gender identity is woman. The only criterion is that you say you identify as a woman. Nothing else matters.

Group 2 believes that a woman is an adult human of the female biological sex, regardless of any gender identity she may or may not feel she has, and that the word does not include any male people, regardless of any gender identity they may or may not feel they have. The only criterion is being female. Nothing else matters. No requirement to perform any particular role.

Group 3 believes that a woman is an adult human of the female biological sex who has a moral obligation to perform feminine gender roles and a man is an adult human of the male biological sex who has a moral obligation to perform masculine gender roles. They abhor non conformists, including both trans people and feminists.

The reason I do not believe there is a Group 4 is because if you believe in the reality of biological sex and accept the legitimacy of gender roles in a non compulsory sense, you are really indistinguishable from Group 1. You think that there are two ways to be a woman, either to be biologically female, or to believe you have a female gender identity, and it follows that you believe trans women are simply a different type of women, just as valid as "cis" women, and equally welcome in women's spaces. If you don't believe that, you are actually in Group 2.

You make some excellent point here. These are also some of the reasons why I will never accept the legitimacy of gender.

But these are issues that show you have thought long and hard about this question from multiple angles. Most people haven't, and just think it's about how much you care about being kind to trans people.

Perhaps my definition of Group 1 needs some tweaking. Rather than "rejects the reality of biological sex", perhaps it should read "denies the importance of biological sex". Because I'm quite sure that most people in Group 1 don't actually believe that humans can change sex or that trans women are literally the same as natal women.

So what it really comes down to is whether you think biological sex is what is important or not.

If you say trans women are women except when it comes to prisons and sports and rape crisis groups then you don't actually believe trans women are women and belong in Group 2 (but are perhaps afraid to say so).

If you say trans women are not actually women but should be allowed in women's spaces and sports because they're the most marginalised people in our society and we must be kind, you're actually in Group 1 because you recognise that they are biological males but have decided it doesn't matter.

Either way, you either believe trans women should be in women's spaces or you don't. There is no real compromise to he had here, which us why there is no Group 4.

Groups 2 and 3 are both groups which don't believe trans women should be in women's spaces, but for different reasons. And they have nothing else in common other than that.

To be perfectly honest, @ArabeIIaScott and @MargotBamborough, I'm pretty much on board with your debunkings of my Group 4. I guess I was just playing with the ideas in the original list, in a way that deviated from its intent and also from some of my own beliefs. If I wasn't so involved in this thread, I'd be spending more time in the steel-manning one as I'm not too good at arguing for what I don't believe. I am good at compromise (I like to think!), but have, like many on here, become increasingly resolute in my views in the light of much of what Arabella listed. I find it interesting that trying to think through softer propositions than my usual does typically tend to return me ever more firmly to the opinion that, the multitude of I've no doubt lovely people caught up in it notwithstanding, something is rotten in the state of Gender(mark?) - but with the additional reassurance that I'm watching myself like a hawk to make sure I don't deviate from my own values of (I hope) fairness, empathy etc. I don't tend to subscribe to some of the ideas about the darker driving forces behind it all (bar capitalist forces, self-interested politics - dark enough for me - and self-interested individuals of all types leaping opportunistically on the bandwagon), but do feel that, in its current manifestation, the ideology is fundamentally, deeply misogynist, and exposing how very present that still is society (what a wake-up call it's been), and positively authoritarian in its (more extreme?: frankly, some of its more standard) manifestations....

I have found this thread and its predecessor fascinating and I am in awe of the posters on all sides of the debate who have provided thoughtful arguments while keeping teddy in the pram. I do have a problem though. If one's biological sex is insignificant compared to gender, what are you identifying into?

I do have a problem though. If one's biological sex is insignificant compared to gender, what are you identifying into?

They are “identifying into” a shared understanding of what a woman is, based on the fact that everyone actually knows what a woman is, even as they try to shove various men into the category.

@JanesLittleGirl well quite

circular definitions annoy the heck out of me like a toothache. (I realise that this is a me problem).

Thanks for clarifying your thinking on the categories @MargotBamborough ISWYM

@PriOn1 @howdoesatoastermaketoast So if it sounds like a load of self-validating old bollocks, that's because it is a load of self-validating old bollocks.

I do have a problem though. If one's biological sex is insignificant compared to gender, what are you identifying into?

Yet another one of those frequently asked but never answered questions.

This is indeed the best explanation:

So if it sounds like a load of self-validating old bollocks, that's because it is a load of self-validating old bollocks.

Amazes me that purportedly intelligent people buy this old bollocks.

Apologies if this doesnt make much sense, my brain is tired.

Over the years I have been in many a meeting where abbreviations get used. And I've sat there and watched people pretend to know what a particular abbreviation is. Yet no one would actually ask for fear of revealing themselves to be stupid.

I feel like this is a bigger version of that. They ask the question get a load of gobbledygook back in return see their learned friends nodding along and agreeing and instead of going that's bollocks they just agree with it, and go along with the herd, for fear of revealing that they don't understand.