Where to Start

[PepeParapluie]

I’ve been lurking for a while here and have seen lots of thoughtful, insightful and wise comments from the regular posters here. You are doing a good thing in creating a space where these issues can be discussed fearlessly and there are definitely lurkers like me watching and learning, even if it does take a while to pluck up the courage to say so!

I have spent lots of time reading (not just here) and learning about sex & gender issues and think I am now settled in my own gender critical viewpoint, and could discuss fairly confidently most of the issues thrown up. However, it would take hours of discussion to cover all the ground, and often other people won’t have the time or inclination to spend hours discussing it with me. Sometimes opportunities have arisen to discuss these issues with friends but l struggle to focus on the main and most accessible points.

Many of my friends just haven’t thought much about it and are TWAW by default if you like - think ‘live and let live’ and why wouldn’t we just be kind, but not because they’ve really engaged with things, just because that’s what seems to be socially accepted.

So I thought I’d ask - where do you start when discussing all this with people? What do you think are the clearest and easiest places to start for people who are new to the gender critical side? How do you boil it all down?

Oh yes, and that's the other thing, op. Many people don't realise how few men have 'the op'. It's something like 5%. And how many are heterosexual.

What is the difference between, say Eddie Izzard or Caitlin Jenner and any other heterosexual man? Why not let all the blokes in to change with my 13 year old niece?

Afterwards I thought more about it and felt annoyed I hadn’t challenged that guilt by association (if it’s even true, which I’m not sure it is) but it felt daunting enough exposing myself as an evil TERF at all and it’s always easy to think of things you should have said afterwards. Im sure there will be other opportunities!

Yes, I think it's so easy to shut women up by being judgey about how mean they're being. Men have relied on this to get what they want for centuries, and it's especially effective when they can get women to police other women using the same means.

I found that being able to recognise the different tactics misogynists use to shut women up and dismiss their views makes it easier to spot them and challenge them in the moment.

I'm still learning and practising, but I've found it takes a combination of lurking on here and reading and thinking, but also lots and lots of practice (i.e. having real-life conversations) to be able to spot the silencing techniques in the wild, as women have been socialised to comply with them and to not even notice them.

And of course, it's especially hard to recognise silencing techniques and challenge them when they're coming from a friend, family member or colleague with whom you have an ongoing relationship. Obviously, loved ones don't tend to realise that's the argument they're using, as they've just been fed these lines in inclusion training, or by reading articles or tweets by someone who's had inclusion training.

Nevertheless, when people whose opinions I care about are criticising me for being a bigot and having "extreme" views, it often takes me a minute to remember "no, hang on, if women having basic rights is an extreme view, then wtf kind of society are we living in?".

Discussing sports and women in prison is usually a clear place to start. And once you have read the studies and sort through people’s confusion about males with DSDs that have been horrifically leveraged in the discussion, it provides clarity.

In fact, the Transgender Law Center in the USA believes that sports is where women’s arguments provide clarity too. This Messaging Guide they released states avoid sports, twist the conversation to race and the commonalities we state exist with race instead. (While calling the general public ‘persuadables’ no less!)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd0f29d0d626c5fb471be74/t/61b13d00236e2f7f2dbb9a36/1639005441624/Transgender+Youth+and+the+Freedom+to+Be+Ourselves.pdf

Thanks for starting this thread OP, there's some brilliant advice here. I agree with the PP who did a mindmap as I found that helpful to get my head round the scale and depth of the madness.

If you talk to someone in real life about this, you may want to get your words straight that it is impossible to change sex. People really do have this vague untested belief that surgery and hormones can turn someone into the opposite sex. I don't ever use the word 'transition' for this reason, I only ever refer to drugs, surgery, or changing pronouns and dress.

Once someone concedes that humans can't change sex then I find it easier to tackle prisons, sports, hospital wards, overnight school trips and so on. If they still think sex change is real then they might not be worth arguing with!

Yes you’re so right, people assume transgender means at least heading towards full surgery, and don’t realise how much it now encompasses and how little surgery now matters or factors into it. I think making people aware of that does change their perspective a fair bit.

@Helleofabore that paper/ guide from the Transgender Law Centre is interesting, if slightly infuriating, reading. I can’t believe they’re suggesting essentially appropriating (that may not be the right term, but I can’t think of a better word) other groups’ ‘fights’ to covertly garner support for transgender issues where otherwise, there is little support. For example, distracting from legitimate concerns over transgender women’s participation in women’s sport by talking about the ‘real issue’ being the underfunding and second class treatment of women’s sport. I agree there are issues there, but it’s apples and pears - both things can be an issue at the same time. The ‘real enemy’ argument just seems like such a distraction. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I hope people they’re using that tactic on don’t fall for it…

I used a couple of examples that were personal to my own life:

-I volunteer with people with learning disabilities, so am particularly concerned how those with autism are impacted by this ideology.

-I have a relative who's a butch lesbian and I want to know why a shit 90s lads mag joke "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body!" has now become something we have to pretend is real.

Well pepe, they do call the people they are targeting with the tactics 'persuadables'. So, they absolutely will do this in real life and on any media to achieve their goal.

Sickening when you see the manipulative tactics laid bare. And they are proud of those tactics as well.

I wasn't aware about Stonewall's reframing of"same sex attracted" to "same gender attracted"

Very interesting and just another way to intimidate and silence lesbians.

I don't know a single gay man of my acquaintance who would contemplate a sexual relationship with a TransMan. They laugh at the very idea and then just carry on as they were.
Because this sort of pressure only ever goes one way.

Yes, and that's another argument that the OP could use.

That transgenderism directly undermines even the very concept of gay rights.

There's no such thing as a homosexual man, or a lesbian under trans ideology.

People don't like to think of themselves as homophobic, so it's a good question to pose. Do you believe in homosexuality, as protected by equality law? Because if you do, then you're nasty, terf bigot.

As others have said, sport is a good place to start. Because the biological-sex-based reasons for segregation are clear. Pink News recently said the idea that men are stronger than women was a "hateful narrative" precisely because it's a good place to start.

The thing at the heart of it all, though, is self-identification.
It fundamentally places women and girls at the mercy of men.
It replaces female consent with male say-so.
It requires women and girls to accommodate male wishes and desires.

Absolutely about the other women and not the space itself, as evidenced by the TW who, upon inserting themselves into a female space, was aghast that the women decided to change and undress in another room. They then sought legal advice on their online forum to see if there was a legal way to force the women back to using the original women's space. No joke.
It's never been about the room itself, it's about the willing or unwilling participation of women to validate their supposed womanhood by accepting them into the fold, as it were.
What use is an empty room to them womaning away on their own with nobody there to see it?

It is perhaps notable that it's only homosexuality that Stonewall redefines. Their glossary defines 'homosexual' as "someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender", but the word "heterosexual" is "a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men".

Pink News recently said the idea that men are stronger than women was a "hateful narrative" precisely because it's a good place to start.

I have a hard time understanding people who express the above view. Regarding sport, my own experience provides an example of how misguided the idea is.

This is a number of years ago, but I used to play county womens cricket in the premier league (i.e. the only level higher is playing for England). As part of pre-season prep one year our first team played our county u17 boys team. They annihilated us. Batting, bowling, fielding - completely swept the floor. It was totally embarrassing. It wasn't even a match it was so one-sided. To be clear, my team were not teenagers, we were an adult womens team that included a (then) current England player and a number of players in the England womens development scheme. Womens sports are restricted for a reason.

I'm sure lots of women here will have their own similar stories.

The whole ideology balances precariously on the 'transwomen are women' mantra.

All of it.

Because the moment you state the fact that transwomen are MALE it all comes toppling down

Can males compete in female sports, can males be housed with female prisoners, can males be lesbians, can males stay on female only hospital wards, can males be naked with women in places where they are also naked and/or vulnerable, can males take prizes and awards on all women shortlists, do males count as females on equality counts, can male criminals have their crime recorded as committed by females, can males be counted as females in data... it goes on and on.

So I would start by asking, in what way are these males women?

They are women in the same way X-Factor contestants who’ve “dreamed of this all my life” are wonderful singers.

I think what a pp said about TWAW being literal is very interesting. Most people say it in a woolly be kind sort of way, but if they are asked to consider it in a literal way they might see sense. I was watching a video with a discussion between a paramedic trans supporter (i think he was trans himself can't quite remember) and some GC guy, GC guy says right you are called out on a medical emergency, patient is a trans woman and tells you they are pregnant and in labour, do you prepare to deliver a baby? Trans supporter had no reply. When faced with TWAW as a literal fact surely most people of sense can see the truth.

HI OP, many of us have been where you are - I spent a long time wondering what all the fuss was about, until I read and heard some things that seemed too ridiculous to be true, and then some more ridiculous things - until I thought I was going mad! Then I found this board, and was so relieved at the rational arguments.

Anyway, a few things that have helped me gain confidence in my arguments over the last few years have been listening to brilliant people like Helen Joyce or Andrew Doyle. They both articulate the issues so well and so logically.

Just to note, Andrew Doyle is a gay man who is speaking out how homophobic the whole gender identity movement is.

This is where echo chambers and epistemological bubbles have gotten them - unable to rebut any logical argument or criticism.

This is also why 'no debate' was the mantra for so long - they can't actually logically argue this stuff on it's merits, so they need to employ emotional manipulation instead.

The whole ideology balances precariously on the 'transwomen are women' mantra.

All of it.

Indeed. And, of course, the fact that TWAW is apparently such a live issue, and TMAM is much less talked about, is also significant.

Yes, I think a great way to discuss this topic with people is to ask them to clarify what they actually mean when they say x, or what is their actual understanding of y, and then take it from there with a series of further questions.

I find that many people who parrot the stonewall phrases they've picked up at work or who recoil in horror if you misgender a celebrity in conversation actually care quite a lot about biology and the safety of women and children when you get into the details of what they think.

A few people I assumed were completely captured actually turned out to be quite GC after all, but you'd never know it from the "be kind" stuff they say. Lots of people don't realise that other people mean this stuff (e.g. TWAW) literally, as they've ascribed a level of common sense and decency to evangelical gender identity ideologues that simply isn't there in many cases.

Hmm, I guess another thing you will realise when you start to post about this stuff is how quickly you will get deleted for posting truthful statements, which seems a bit ridiculous.
Anyway, such is the madness of it all...

Of course it would also be helpful if the papers (as per a Daily Mirror link I saw here yesterday) didn't refer to "sex-change operations". There's no such thing. Clearly, this also cannot be said often enough.

Agree with PPs on sports and prisons as being a good place to start a conversation.

I've also found conversations around the social transitioning of children to be helpful, by exploring the concern that in taking an unquestioning affirmative approach, schools, healthcare providers and parents are completely failing deeply unhappy children, many of whom have autism or are dealing with other complex issues, who are desperately looking for help and acceptance, and the only bloody place they are finding it is in gender ideology, because all other channels for mental health support have been utterly cut to the bone.

So the argument is less about how children with genuine gender dysphoria should be supported, and more about the fact that for every dysphoric child, there are a hundred more confused, vulnerable children who are not getting the mental health support they need, and may actually end up on a medical pathway which has profound consequences for their adult lives.