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. 😀

Here's a good litmus test for acolytes of gender identity ideology: if they learn about the rapes of women in prison by males who are incarcerated there based on claims of having a 'female gender identity', and try to excuse, minimise or even defend this, so as not to challenge their gender beliefs, then they're too far gone into this cult to bother spending any further time talking to.

If you feel you have gained a lot from this thread, then that is good.

“I'm not in the least surprised that it took time for her to bother doing that.”

Why? Honestly, why? Why do people not read posts and work through them and evaluate the information given?

I am surprised that people don’t do that.

I think as much as it might be necessary to rehash the arguments over and over again for lurkers, I also think that we need to robustly push back on the idea that we are somehow uneducated, new to the argument and somehow haven't put in the effort before.

I will stress that for me this has been going on since 2006 for personal reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those who have treated to preach to me didn't even start to transition until AFTER this. I know that many other regulars have had concerns for a long long time too.

And the evidence only mounts to add weight to their concerns - there isn't anything really going in the opposite direction to support the idea that transition is beneficial in the long term (not least because of the refusal to do follow up research).

For many of us, it's the trans advocates who are new to the game and are unaware of the issues and haven't listened to all the things that have been said for well over a decade now with regards to this.

And yet here we are still being hit with the same tropes and emotional guilt trips. We've calmly and sensibly laid out the concerns only to be threatened with violence or loss of income or other forms of intimidation rather than engagement.

If we get pissed off with it, then actually it's bloody staggering that we've been so bloody calm and accomodating in the face of this for so damn long. The resilience of the women who have gone to court and have campaigned against the odds just to get anyone in power to listen is gobsmacking and awe inspiring.

And still we get told to 'try harder and to listen' as if we haven't.

I very genuinely don't think the problem with 'not listening' lies with the side that has tried to get political debate, has appealed to TRAs to discuss on TV and radio, has written extensively to various government departments or institutions in calm measured manner, has tried to have articles commissioned and published by the likes of the Guardian or has challenged the 'no debate mantra'.

We must stress this HARD because all this 'try harder' and we should 'engage more passively and constructively' is actually rolling back on the position we are at and trying to discredit women in a convert way. Again.

This must be said as part of any discussion of the issues.
We are not all Spartacus. We are all Cassandra. And that smacks of the core of rampant misgyony going on with the whole damn debate.

It comes back to the good faith argument for me.

Is it really good faith to be saying that women haven't considered the subject fully enough and they haven't engaged enough? Really? Really? Can you seriously suggest that in good faith?

That's what really irks.

Three and a half hours later, and @SpookyFBI having been on the thread several times since, I still don't see an answer to my questions.

What does "living as a boy" entail?

Why does a hair cut matter? What sort of hair cut do only boys have?

What are boy's clothes? What sort of clothes do only boys wear?

I don't think I'm asking an individual to answer for a group. It was after all @SpookyFBI who mentioned saying to a future daughter "For now why don’t you try living as a boy for a while and see how it goes. I would be happy to take you to get a hair cut and buy you some boy’s clothes if you like. "

Oh dear

The other dynamic in these threads whether intended or not which carries a certain degree of uncomfortability for me, is that it's usually a whole pile of women almost 'hanging off the every word' of a man whose lived experience is somehow THE authority on the matter.

Says who?

The male is the centre of the conversation. When we are talking about a lack of women centred thought and how women are being forced to defer to males to their own detriment.

Why?

The irony isn't lost on me.

There is no reciprocal respect for the lived experience of the variously directly impacted women. It's simply 'you need to listen to the males more'. The arrogance to say that without any level of self awareness is fascinating to see displayed.

What's that all about?!

I wouldn't call myself hard-line at all - certainly not in my tone, comparative to some others. I just don't have the time and patience anymore unless I feel it will be effective in some way. The closing down and refusing to engage is all one way when it comes to questioning the gender identity narrative. It seems somethings are not really open for debate or discussion.

What do you personally think has been achieved so far?
( apart from people showing they can engage with a veneer of politeness and good manners?)

Admittedly, I haven't read all of the posts - some were far too long and demanding of my time and attention. I was not convinced there was going to be any thing radically new or different to what I'd heard or encountered before.

I, of course, know who Philosophy Tube is. I remember seeing their words and thinking there was so much misogyny there it had to be obvious to everyone.

”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’. “

I agree that, framed that way, these ideas are far fetched. I do see the possibility of ‘big pharma’ and paedophiles piggybacking on the ‘trans rights’ movement, and putting their weight behind it. So I strongly doubt that they started this movement, but their interests do seek to be served by it.

Thanks to all the stalwarts posting again and again for us mostly lurkers! I think Spooky has done us a service but I can also see how it’s irritating. I do think that you only have to have lurked on the board for a while to understand the depth of knowledge and research provided by the old hands.

Spooky maybe have a really good look round the board, threads going back for years, every aspect being drilled down into. There are threads that follow court cases minute by minute! The people on these boards have definitely put the work in.

I want to pick up on this point, in relation to the 'why don't you listen harder' line.

Those of us who survived that period of bans and decided to stick with it all in the face of limits on how we were allowed to talk rather than finding somewhere else to discuss have been the more level headed, calm, patient, considered, measured and often least confrontational posters.

In order to stick around, the way debate on MN has been directed/ enabled by HQ has been to encourage and force educated and well thought out points.

In order to avoid legal backlashes and impacts on jobs and real life, posters have had to almost tone down what they say. For years.

And the biggest reaction seems to be when we simply say, "No". No this isn't ok with us.

We have to provide lengthy arguments and justifications in the face of such logic of 'I am whoever I say I am. If I am a woman then I am a woman'. This is the party line of the Labour Party and embodied by their support for Eddie Izzard.

Again the very definition of misgyony and one of Bewilderness's rules:
Men are whoever they say they are. Women are whoever men say they are.

Women can not just say "I am a woman. Only biological females can be women" cos there is apparently nuance to this argument.

It's all about the power of language over and against women.

These threads do highlight them well.

Everything is stacked up against women to assert themselves. To explain and justify everything - even the concept of what a woman is. It's to pigeon hole them as bigoted and uneducated. If only they engaged more directly with the trans community. As unwilling to engage. To dismiss their life experiences as less relevant. To emotionally twist things as not being 'respectful' enough. To suggest that women are brainwashed as a hive mind on here and conduct piles. It's to fail to address the need for watertight legalisms - which protect women - by saying they are irrelevant and it's all about feelings and ideas.

All that has been compressed and suppressed and women have to control themselves in a way that doesn't seem to be the case for males elsewhere online where threats go unchallenged and suspensions only go against women despite some of the most appalling displays of behaviour which wouldn't be tolerated in other situations.

MN is remarkably healthy despite all of that. We still have women who won't give the displays attempts to silence / control women the time of day.

Ultimately, if just 5% of the female population are deeply uncomfortable with males in their spaces - for all the reasons of safety and dignity that are listed and demonstrable - then that should be enough to force the rethink it deserves. The reality is that level is considerably higher and women are still just told to suck it up.

That's not ok.

In the words of MN, "No is a complete sentence".

Saying no is about consent. We, women, do not consent. This should be enough, and yet it is not.

Instead we have to continue to argue the case for the need for consent... and that's what this thread is - arguing for the need for consent.

In that context, I ask those posters who have felt uncomfortable on this thread but are struggling to verbalise it, to reflect on that point.

What your video doesn't cover off is that many people also don't just take somebody's word that something is right. They go and find the original source and evaluate THAT. This video does show however how people who do not do this then keep the reaction cycle going.

And by the way, I studied this type of behavioural science for years in my work. Maybe that is why I don't just listen to one group's perspective and all their self confirming biases.

The fact that you seem to want to write off posts because you believe they are 'far fetched', whereas you have not given it any deeper thought and thought through the possible connections or even what people are actually saying, is something that has become quite clear. I don't discount thoughts based on them being 'far fetched'.

I evaluate them further and, if need be, do the research to see why people have said something before I write off an idea.

Yes. Hence framing something in language as used above makes the possibility of those groups deriving benefit easy to dismiss.

Needless to say, that is why dishonest framing of these statements is done. And it is yet another 'dishonest' tactic whether the people writing the statements are aware of that dishonesty or not.

I was sure you did know of tube although he's discussed elsewhere more than here in terms of the type of motivation behind the identity.

I just wanted to highlight an aspect of the presentation that is preferred and what that says about an influencer claiming to be female.

I've never knowingly wriggled my female self into a PVC tube although bin bags were popular in punk days and I may have gone out in one of those once. It's a bit hazy and I blame it on being skint at the time.

Which tube most definitely isn't, there's a lot of money being made by influencers dressing up "female" style.

@SpookyFBI
"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"

I don't think so. Most of the churches I've ever been to would give you a cup of tea (maybe even a Biscuit too) and ask why you feel that way. And listen. (of course, they might also offer to pray for you, which would be meant kindly but might be irritating if you aren't into that, but hey that's a risk you take going into a church).

Ikwym though.

I think you're on the money when you say that people don't like to listen to opposing views, although maybe it would be more correct to say some people, some of the time, particularly when it relates to views they may not realise are opinion or belief. Yes it can feel like an attack, and you are doing well to come back and engage and I salute you for it.

However, I think it's easy, especially when you're in the minority, to feel as though a question is an attack. 'Pulling apart arguments is what debating is all about, people ask questions to clarify their understanding. It's not necessarily to try to prove you wrong and score points.

But if you believe women's rights should be curtailed, people in this board will want to hear a logical coherent explanation for why you think that. This is real life and it has real impacts on us. I don't think that's too much to ask

I think there are two threads of thought I'd like to contribute to. I think the concept of Platonic forms is really appropriate and relevant here, that is I think precisely what people are talking and thinking about whether they have encountered or explored that concept before. Plato was hugely influential to western thinking.

Here's a thought experiment, you're in front of the class of primary school kids

The special 'woman' essence / mind / soul exists you tell them let's think about what it is, you're a trained teacher so you ask them questions, they give you answers, you write the answers on the board. What is it that you could possibly end up with that isn't a sex stereotype?

Wouldn't it be better to run the lesson as...

divide the whiteboard into 3
just for girls - both girls and boys - just for boys

Start with Hobbies:
What hobbies are only for girls? [take answers, see if anyone disagrees, write it on the board in the appropriate place]
What hobbies are only for boys [take answers, see if anyone disagrees, write it on the board in the appropriate place]
What hobbies can both boys and girls do [take answers, see if anyone disagrees, write it on the board in the appropriate place]

I would imagine in this country that children would actually be quite uncomfortable answering the first 2 questions, I'd be surprised if you had more than 1 or 2 answers in either the boys or girls column - by the time you got to question 3 they'd be giving you hobbies faster than you could write them. IF you had anything in the boys or girls column go back and reframe the question as do we actually think boys can't do this? Why not, what stops them? Repeat for the girls column. rub out and move if / when the class wants you to.

Repeat for tv programs, music they listen to, sports they do (or want to try), jobs they do (or would want to do), there may never have been a woman who was president of the united states but there have demonstrably been a number of women and girls who wanted to be.- food & drinks ( show the yorkie bar "it's not for girls advert" - I would expect the kids to laugh).

Talk about personality words:
careless / careful
strong / weak
kind / mean
decisive/ indecisive
determined
ambitious
confident

as you're writing them ask if people think this is a good thing to be...
boss
bossy - is bossy a good thing to be?

see how the kids take it - talk about the way sexism sometimes 'punishes' girls and women with bad words for behaviours that would get a good word for a boy or man. What might be called confident / decisive / determined in a boy or man being called bossy in a girl - is that fair?

Talk about who you're allowed to fall in love with... give examples of famous 'out' people if necessary as a prompt but it's likely someone in the class will give you the answer that women are allowed to fall in love with women, and vice versa.

Show some photos of famous people who did not present in conventional or expected ways. Explain hair make up and dress can be thought of in the same way.

Some men want to wear make up and some women want to wear make up and (although there's a rule against wearing it to school) that's ok. It isn't compulsory for anyone and although it's more commonly done by women than men - wearing make up, nail varnish, of elaborate hairstyles doesn't make you any less of a man, or any more of a woman. Say that sometimes men dressing in colourful clothes, using make up having elaborate hairstyles might also be gay and be attracted to men, or they might be bisexual and be attracted to men and women.

You spend you childhood figuring out what kind of a grown up you want to be, what hobbies are you, what sports you enjoy doing or watching, what clothes suit you and make you feel happy and confident, figure it out and be the best happiest version of yourself and no need to mind or worry about the fact that there are lots of different ways to be a man, and lots of different ways to be a woman.

====================================================

It seems to me that that is a much better and more helpful lesson for children to hear

yep.

And it is also why when we are told we are not doing things 'right' it feels like a complete disconnect. Because what it is really is someone who hasn't looked very hard and made that assumption based on a preconceived idea of their own rather than understanding the depth and layers of what actually happens on this board and the actions taken by so many posters off this board. Sometimes because of things read here.

But I do tend to find some posters, in general not aimed at any posters here, that use the 'you just don't know any trans people', or 'you haven't listened' or 'you don't understand' to be using plenty of projection when the surface of their arguments is exposed.

But if you believe women's rights should be curtailed, people in this board will want to hear a logical coherent explanation for why you think that.

Well quite. And without hiding behind this stuff about 'emotional safety'.

A straightforward answer to a straightforward question. It's not an unreasonable ask - far from it.

To clarify what I was trying to say here, (I haven’t read ahead yet so I don’t know if others have tried to speculate), 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’.

What is the purpose of safeguarding? Why is safeguarding needed.

In the past - let's go back to the Romans here - society realised that the absence of checks and balances to power, led men to exploit and abuse power. The biggest excesses in power have been 'farfetched' and extreme. They are the genocides and the authoritarian dictatorships that have plagued us through human history.

Humans will push things as far as society will allow in the pursuit of wealth and power. Humans will exploit loopholes in society to get an edge on other humans for their own benefit.

Big Pharma's primary goal is to make as much money as possible. It's secondary goal is to improve health outcomes. Because we live in a capitalist society. There are numerous examples of how it dislikes and resists regulation because this inhibits it's primary goal and there are plenty of examples of where it's secondary goal isnt followed because of the impact on its primary goal.

We have safeguarding and ethics to stop the ambitions of the primary goal destroying the secondary goal completely. Without it, big pharma could and would sell drugs with significant side effects directly to minors. Strangely enough activism and social media is allowing the indirect marketing to minors. We have a culture wave of this. It's legal but ethically highly dubious.

In terms of exploiting and abusing vulnerable people, there are well established patterns for this with unethical people who look to use them for their personal gain. We know that abusers look for positions of power where checks and balances are minimal or they try to undermine those checks and balances. It is therefore logical to assume that someone with bad intentions would try and hide from suspicion and scrutiny by aligning with something associated with 'good' within our cultural values system.

People who seek power have to endere themselves to others - because they need that support - before they can abuse that power.

That nasty Roman had to use his contacts and friendships on the way to becoming Emperor before he could kill them all off if he perceived them as a threat. Therefore he had to be charming, likeable and non-threatening - in an inconceivable manner whilst he gathered that support. Otherwise the checks and balances would spot him as a threat to the established power.

This is about the dynamics of power. Not conspiracy theories.

We have a situation where we can't say certain things because that offends a group. This undermines our ability to identify threats and abuses of power. It's a failure to safeguard.

If you wish to suggest that big pharma shouldn't be regulated, what is your argument? Why does it need to be regulated? If it isn't regulated, what might it do? Is big pharma trying to find ways around regulations to maximise profits? Are there examples of big pharma breaching regulations? What have been the historic consequences? What past unethical practices has big pharma been guilty of?

These questions are relevant before dismissing the idea of big pharma wanting to trans kids. These questions are relevant before dismissing concerns as conspiracy theories.

They are not. It is regular safeguarding which is being dismissed here.

It always pays to also remember that Thorn is also someone who acts. And that Thorn's financial wellbeing is fully dependent on Thorn's ability to 'influence' and Thorn is currently 'knocking on some big doors' with their agent.

Incidentally, I have seen Doctorate philosophers, with published research papers and professor roles tear down each other for daring to call themselves 'Philosophers'. It seems that there is an expectation professionally before assuming the title that Thorn has. But hey ho. I guess if you collect labels easily, you might not consider that aspect.

@bigbabycooker Your post is very interesting and I agree with a fair amount of it. But I would like to add my perspective to what you say about adults.

Thirdly, I wanted to explain a bit more on fear, from the gender critical point of view. I don't fear trans people. I also don't fear having an adult trans child. What I do fear is that children might make irreversible changes to their bodies (puberty blockers etc) without true understanding.

I think that actually in terms of my own feelings about the personal decision my reaction is that they are not different at all in adults. So, if my 25 year old adult child told me that they were gay or trans, then that would be the end of a conversation, in the sense that I'd fully accept that they had made the decision that felt right for them.

My experience is that of a parent whose son has come out as transgender as an adult. I accept that he is more ‘feminine’ than most men; that is fine. He is less conforming than me to societal norms; that is a little uncomfortable, but I can respect him in it. He wants to change his body to “match” his feminine presentation; to me, that is unhealthy thinking and looks very much like self harm.

Most people recognise that there are vulnerable adults. I think that any adult can be vulnerable at any time in their life. My son seems to me to be vulnerable at this period in his life, vulnerable to a worldview that says he can ‘be a woman’, that says ‘this is the way to be transgender’. There are many ways to be transgender, especially now that the umbrella is so large that I could make a case for being under it myself, simply because I think everyone could be seen as non-binary! But the ’progressive’ discourse has been “trans is good, it’s a positive thing to alter your body to fit your gender identity [’50s style gender stereotypes]", and suddenly my son seems to think he needs to fit in. He’s autistic, which in my view means that he is possibly more vulnerable to getting a bee in his bonnet than more neurotypical people. And it is hard to present an alternative, less damaging, worldview when so much of society sees it as bigoted.

To clarify what I was trying to say here, (I haven’t read ahead yet so I don’t know if others have tried to speculate), 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

I understand that it sounds far fetched.

But things like this can and have happened.

I was appalled when I first heard about what Green Party policy advocated for and achieved in Germany in the 1980s. Yet this is very rarely spoken of. Horrifying.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-greens-idINBRE98F0FI20130916

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles

Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying this situation is totally analogous. I'm saying that horrifying things have been done in plain sight, by members of the establishment, for morally repugnant ends

There's a whole thread on 'that would never happen'.

All those extreme things that were inconceivable. Until they weren't.

"Anyway, in one of her videos she does talk about the fact that it is common for trans people to feel pressured to say what the therapist wants to hear to overcome the barrier to the medical care they need (I understand many of you won’t see it as ‘medical care they need’, but surely you understand that this is the perspective of the trans people seeking this care)."

So, you think that a group of vulnerable people should be told that they should 'fear' clinicians who might not automatically agree with the patients expectations?

You think a person who manipulates someone who is the role of assessing the state of mental health or suitability of what the person is desiring, to make that person believe that person is suitable or believe that the person is something other than the material reality, is justified in that manipulation?

You think a vulnerable child or adolescent should listen to an influencer or a group heavily invested in only presenting positive aspects of transition and be primed with what to say? Because why? A clinician may assess that there are other needs that this child or adolescent need treatment for first?

Do you understand that "trans people to feel pressured to say what the therapist wants to hear to overcome the barrier to the medical care they need" because other people have influenced them to such a degree that they believe that this treatment they fear being denied is the only way they will be able to survive (that suicide misrepresentation) or even just to be happy?

Do you understand that a trained clinician is there to provide unbiased assistance to that child/adolescent?

Honestly, I read that paragraph :

"Anyway, in one of her videos she does talk about the fact that it is common for trans people to feel pressured to say what the therapist wants to hear to overcome the barrier to the medical care they need (I understand many of you won’t see it as ‘medical care they need’, but surely you understand that this is the perspective of the trans people seeking this care)."

And I see many things. I see manipulation of many people, trans people and clinicians and others. I see justification for dishonesty. I see a lack of curiosity and a whole heap of questions arising from that one paragraph. Whether any of that was intended or not, it is there.