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. 😀

@SpookyFBI You'll be pleased to know that this reply is a lot shorter than my last one 😂 I think I can cover off my thoughts on your posts above here too.

Thank you too. Massively. Without your thoughts and commentary I'd have been wading around in an echo chamber of my own head. I've never fully known how to get my thoughts out on this board before and you've been a big part of that changing for me.

We've both been advocates for listening to others and I think we've helped show each other (and maybe others, who knows) that this is possible even in difficult circumstances. You had it way harder than me. I had a brief period where my own motivations were called in to question (I still have no idea if they are questionable but this is the internet - I'm not going to worry about managing everyone's opinion of me.. in potentially the whole world 😂) but the impact of that was that I found it really hard to keep my train of thought. I can only imagine how overwhelming it is to be on the receiving end of lots of questions asked in lots of different styles and tones.

Yes, you and I have different views on this difficult subject. But you've helped me change my perspective too. Particularly in your summing up this morning (in my time zone). What you shared about the "gender critical agenda" was very thought-provoking. I haven't listened or watched any of the agenda videos that have been posted in this thread yet, but I will. Before I watch anything like that though, I have discussions first. I don't want my opinion being formed by someone's opinion on the agenda of someone else. Added to yes, after I've applied my own critical thinking but not formed. And I totally agree that if you watch or read something that comes from what you personally perceive to be a really extreme end on the "other side", it just sounds mad.

I have a huge respect for you and all the conversations you've been a part of. Thank you 🙏

I agree. I don't deny that someone can have an inner feeling but it is the labelling of it as 'trans' or 'really being a girl ' which is a problem.

For about 2 years, my daughter consistently and genuinely believed she was 'part cat'. She identified certain feelings and ways of acting that made her feel that in some way her actual physical being was a mixture of human and feline.

Later she would say 'I'm weird' or I'm different ' from the others in my class.

Of course she then received an autism diagnosis and has never mentioned any feelings like this again. She now has a sense that she is an individual. She knows she feels differently and reacts differently to most other people but is secure in her self identity.

My problem with gender identity is that it takes an inner feeling that someone has and gives it a label which is at odds with reality. If a boy feels this mismatch of identity, why can't it be acknowledged with some other word? It is the automatic labelling of this feeling as 'being a girl ' which is problematic. It's as though the child HAS to fit in a box and this box has to be either a girl or boy way of behaving. And that once you accept this label you have to reject your biology and expect others to do so as well. And that is harmful.

I still haven’t caught up, I had to step away to tend to my daughter and do other things, but I want to make a quick point about something. Some have said that I have been ignoring their posts. I have and I have a very good reason for doing that. The posters who have actually made me re-examine my position and change my mind on some things are the posters who have taken the time to genuinely understand my perspective and use it as a jumping off point to explain theirs. The posters who take a more combative approach of picking apart what I have said and trying to ‘disprove’ it haven’t left me feeling like they must be right, they’ve just left me feeling like I’ve been misunderstood, which leaves me feeling defensive and angry. That frame of mind makes it genuinely difficult to open myself up to try to understand your perspective. Your goal seems to be to change my mind but you’ve taken an approach that I know won’t accomplish that, so why should either of us bother?

I don’t think it’s possible to change anyone’s mind, only to change your own mind. If you’ve come here to change my mind without taking the time to genuinely try to understand me then I think all you’ll actually accomplish is reinforcing your own beliefs to yourself and those who already agree with you. To me that seems like a waste of time. It’s a waste of my time at least.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

I'm trying to step away to get myself up for the day but I had to come back and give you support for this

💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪

Also, @Catiette great summary. Right. Need to get up and have breakfast with kids.

How do you expect someone to understand your point of view and perhaps change their mind if you refuse to explain it?

I feel like I've tried pretty hard to engage with you in this thread but the only real response I've had (which I was quite surprised about) was that you don't really understand what gender identity is. And to be frank, that's not the sort of response that is going to make any gender critical feminist re-examine their position that gender identity is more important than biological sex and something we should be organising society around.

I remember when I was doing my GCSEs our teachers recommended going through the whole paper before starting and answering all the easy questions where we were confident of being able to pick up all the marks available, and onky tackling the questions we didn't know the answers to at the end, when we had nothing to lose. Your approach to answering questions in this thread reminds me a lot of that. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt because there's a few of us and only one of you. But it seems it was deliberate.

A lot of people have thanked you for your contributions to this thread, and I too thank you for keeping it civil and for your honesty. But frankly, most of us aren't used to debating with someone from the "be kind" side who doesn't just hurl insults and try to catch us out with bad faith but overdone gotchas, so our expectations are low to begin with.

My perspective is:
Nobody can change sex
People can wear what they like
We shouldn't be giving kids drugs which are the same ones used to castrate paedophiles.
We shouldn't be putting men, any men, let alone rapists, in women's prisons.

Where sex matters, it matters.

Tell me where I am going wrong.

There is so much confusion among radical trans activists. Firstly, because they are not permitted to read or to listen to any alternative or threatening views; and secondly because they seem to genuinely believe it is they who are the radicals challenging gender stereotypes.

It is the political activism of the digital, pharmaceutical and transhumanist age - whereby identities are detached from the body and from real life ( gaming culture and avatars); can be selected from a menu ( TQ+) and then medically/surgically delivered.

Have these people entered into these spaces with a genuine willingness to understand their perspective and not try to change their minds? Have they gone into it willing to meet the other side half way, willing to make the same kinds of concessions I have made (entertaining the possibility that gender identity is a belief system akin to a religion and not an actual fact, a perspective that I actually find offensive but am making the effort to consider anyway). Have they gone into these spaces willing to challenge their own beliefs and assumptions and willing to accept the possibility that they may change their own minds?

or have they just gone into these spaces to argue their own case?

if it’s the latter then I’m not surprised they were banned. It would be like an Atheist walking into a church and trying to convince everyone there that there was no god. Of course they’d be kicked out.

Also a lot of younger people have been brought up to believe there are no real differences between the sexes apart from the obvious bodily ones and because they see the self as being totally separate from the body "what differnce does it make what genitals someone has"

@SpookyFBI, sorry if my above post came across as a bit harsh.

It's just that, for me, the question, "What is gender identity?" is absolutely key to this debate.

It is arguably more key than the question, "What is a woman?"

Because we already know what each of the two opposing sides believe a woman is. One side believes a woman is an adult human of the female biological sex, regardless of identity. And the other side believes a woman is a person whose gender identity is woman, who will usually also be biologically female, but not always.

We can understand the first side's definition without the need for further explanation. But we cannot understand the other side's definition without understanding in at least broad terms what a gender identity is. And if even they can't explain what a gender identity is, how are the rest of us supposed to understand? And if nobody understands what one is, how can we even begin to debate whether things like toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis groups, prisons and sports should be organised according to sex or gender identity?

The really frustrating thing is that in the absence of such an explanation and debate, the first side should win the argument by default. But what has actually happened is that, for reasons that aren't clear to me, the other side has "won" the argument by insisting that there must be no debate, because even discussing the validity of trans people's gender identities is hateful and bigoted.

You can see why we think the gender identity side want there to be no debate, can't you?

I'm only lurking on this thread but I find the lack of awareness of this statement astonishing.
Yes, women tried 'be kind, listen' already.
It did not end well.
Will go back to lurking so people much more patient than me can probe such amazing thunks as 'I don't know what gender identity is but I'll affirm it anyway" and "it's not stereotypes but...(radio silence).

Sorry, will recommence being a silently seething woman instead of a vocal one.

I think it’s worth pointing out that no one wants to listen to views that oppose their worldview. No one. Listening to views that oppose your worldview is hard. It’s hard for everyone. We all like to think we’re reasonable people but we’re not. Our lizard brains take over and we make impulsive decisions based on our emotions and then we justify it logically after the fact. Everyone does this. Actually genuinely entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong about something you feel passionate about is uncomfortable, and humans instinctively avoid discomfort.

Everyone - everyone - thinks that they are rational and smart and the other side is irrational and stupid. No one here is immune to this kind of thinking. The way you are describing trans rights activists also applies to those who hold gender critical views, just as it applies to everyone on every side of every divisive issue. If there really was one sensible side and one irrational side then the issue wouldn’t be so divisive and very few people would oppose it.

I’m not saying you should do this to ‘be kind’, I’m saying that if you have the goal of wanting to genuinely understand the other side, this is the only way to really accomplish that goal.

of course if it’s not your goal, and I don’t think anybody should actually feel compelled to have this as their goal, then of course it’s perfectly reasonable not to do it.

How can anyone understand the other side when you can't even explain your own thinking on something as basic as what is gender identity?

“I think it’s worth pointing out that no one wants to listen to views that oppose their worldview. No one.”

Perhaps this is the most important statement here on this thread.

And it obviously shows a completely different perspective. Because I DO listen to views that oppose my worldview! And I do it whenever I can. I listen and if I am in a situation where I can talk, I talk. I ask questions. (Much to so many people’s annoyance on MN)

When I discover I have been so wrong in one of my opinions about a topic, I wonder what else the fuck I have been wrong about. I also then go and read and read. And have discussions with others.

To me, the first sign that I have been wrong in my opinions makes me then question if I am prejudiced about that group. How did the prejudice form? What is the source? And I seek to challenge it all.

I know that I am not different to others on MN FWR because I see them do this live on threads. I see the machinations as they process it.

So yes. Many of us have asked questions right here on MN to trans people. And asked of trans people directly.

But I DO want to have my worldview challenged. That is why I also read deeply.

Many of us were on the other side at one point, know very well the gender ideologist arguments, and peaked because it increasingly didn't make sense when compared to reality.

That implies that this is a fair fight, @SpookyFBI. It isn't.

The gender critical side have a rational argument but we have largely been threatened and bullied into silence. The gender identity side have no rational argument but it doesn't matter because they have the entire political left, public sector, charity sector, international human rights community, most social media platforms and countless major corporations mindlessly and uncritically repeating "trans women are women, no debate".

”suggestion like ‘big pharma created the trans agenda to sell hormones’ or ‘paedophiles created the trans agenda to give puberty blockers to teens so older teens would look younger’ (paraphrasing) to me are a bit far fetched on the level of ‘they’re putting micro chips in the covid vaccine’. “

So you look at questions such as ‘ask yourself exactly who benefits…’ as akin to conspiracy theory style questions ?

Have you ever thought that says more about your own preconceived notions about the discussions you believe feminists have, rather than doing it as an exercise?

Because to safeguard vulnerable people does actually require others to look at the wide perspective and identify other groups who will benefit from those decisions.

This is where I am genuinely struggling, Spooky.

You seem thoughtful, intelligent and insightful. So surely you can explain what gender identity is?

My first encounter with a trans person or trans sexual as we used to call them, was in 1987.

I've known men who say they are women, in numerous guises, situations, places ever since.

I liked some, I didn't like others and some are actual friends of mine.

They all know what sex they are. This is not a surprise.

It's an important point to bear in mind

I also think I can start fleshing things out more in my mind now that I see Spooky finds Philosophy Tube convincing. Seeing how that individual discusses women in general, but feminists also and some of their discussions on ‘trans rights’, it is really useful to see how that is reflected here.

I think it’s worth pointing out that no one wants to listen to views that oppose their worldview. No one. Listening to views that oppose your worldview is hard. It’s hard for everyone. We all like to think we’re reasonable people but we’re not. Our lizard brains take over and we make impulsive decisions based on our emotions and then we justify it logically after the fact. Everyone does this. Actually genuinely entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong about something you feel passionate about is uncomfortable, and humans instinctively avoid discomfort.

Well that's a sweeping generalisation if ever I read one!

Any job that involves policy making requires assessment of all perspectives, not the application of a lizard brain!

I wouldn't last five minutes if I spent my work life expelling emotion instead of considered analysis.

Many people are capable of evaluating a range of perspectives.

I have always read a range of newspapers and magazines for the purpose of getting a rounded view of a subject. I'm patiently explaining this to my young family members who are emoting about how evil capitalism is despite them enjoying the far more fruits of the system than were available to us before they were born!

I think there's a lot of reasons for polarized views but they are not that hard to overcome. Everyone should try it, especially if you want to get on in life and work.

I listen to loads of worldviews, mainly because I do alot of gardening and listen to podcasts all the time. Some I even sit through til the end, no matter how wrong they are. Some I do bail on.

I linked one today, about James Lindsay speaking in Europe.

Apparently he must not be listened to because he is a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Now James Linday was one of 3 people who actually exposed the process of 'idea laundering', where academics would pay to have their nonsense peer reviewed and published in order to retain tenure, which academics need to keep their jobs. The issue is they all peer review each other's nonsense and so nonsense gets published and re-referenced and so it is hard to work out what is actual science and what is utter made up bullshit.

So in exposing an actual 'conspiracy' he is vilified as a 'conspiracy theorist' and must not be listened to. The fact that his actual words should be horrifying to anyone who has an ounce of sense about where all this is going is completely ignored because he has the wrong type of view.

You ony have to look at the state of 'Scientific American' these days. I used to read that journal from cover to cover and now I cannot make it through one issue. It is garbage.

I think we have seen dissonance in action here though on this thread. Because we keep coming back to theoretical discussions.

Maybe to some people, generally speaking, if they focus on that discussion they feel they don’t need to understand how this plays out in reality. Particularly if there is no impact on their life at all.