Anyone interested in a steel manning thread?

[MargotBamborough]

Thanks to @BonfireLadyfor introducing me to this concept.

The way I see it working is that someone starts a thread on a topic relating to trans rights vs women's rights. We could either agree the topic beforehand, or let the person responsible for starting the thread choose a topic.

Two or three posters with gender critical beliefs should play the role of someone with the opposite beliefs, and try to get really into character, imagining what arguments this person would make in response to the subject matter.

So for example, we could have a strident trans activist like Owen Jones, for example, a trans person, and someone who is coming at this from a "be kind" perspective.

Everyone who has not been allocated one of these roles should continue to argue from their own viewpoint, whatever it might be.

To make it more interesting, the thread starter could allocate people their roles by private message and everyone could change their username just for the thread so we don't know who is who.

Anyone game?

I like that idea.

Interesting thought.

So you could have, say, six people participating, three from each side of the debate, with everyone else only watching until the end.

Only problem with that is that people might click on the thread and post without realising they were only supposed to observe.

Or you could have, say, three people representing the "pro gender identity" side of the debate and just open the thread to anyone who wanted to debate them, knowing that most people responding are likely to be gender critical.

Thoughts?

If there is a person 'running' the debate, they could quote the person who posted and kindly ask then to read the OP and to wait until the end of the debate until they post again. Everyone in the debate would know to skip over those posts.

'Or you could have, say, three people representing the "pro gender identity" side of the debate and just open the thread to anyone who wanted to debate them, knowing that most people responding are likely to be gender critical.'

Yes, this would work.

I think maybe in that situation the official debaters could have a signature that they put at the end of each post that clearly states that these are 'steel man' posts by someone who is GC but arguing the GI position as an academic exercise.

They could put something like that in their username for the thread.

I'm sorry, but I think it's very liable not to work on MN, where the thread runners don't have moderating powers and there may well be deliberate disrupters.
And even with normal 'FWR regulars' you'd be cat-herding.

I'm inclined to agree. It would be more workable to just have three clearly identified posters who have to stay in character and let everyone else just say whatever they want, within the site rules obviously.

I'm thinking it might be easiest to keep the same user name (during the same time frame the "characters" might be posting on other threads too) with it clearly laid out in the opening paragraph who is playing each character.
It's a good point that it could end in caricature but hopefully anyone who is taking on a role could keep it reined in so that it's the substance of the character's argument that's written out. Difficult to know but worth a go IMO.
Yes, anyone could join in, including people who may want to disrupt. But if they aren't named in the opening paragraph, that'll be easy to spot. Also that could be another good reason to keep to known user names.
It's a great way to pick through debates in a "safe" way. None of us know each other in real life but I suspect we're all here for the same main reason: we care very much about the impact that gender identity belief is having on society and want to talk about it. Even the trolls that occasionally drop in do so because the subject is important to them.. they just have a different way of handling it (and tend to get deleted/banned if they carry on).

👍 I was typing the above when this dropped in. Sounds perfect.

Actually, just realised some people probably do know each other in real life. Anyway.. the point still stands about creating a safe space being paramount and easy to understand.

Haha, I was writing out a comment to this effect and cat herding was the exact phrase...

I agree with you. Not for me.
I think it could go horribly wrong.

What's the worst that could happen?

Sorry @MargotBamborough I can see the enthusiasm but I just don’t get it. I don’t want to come into an anonymous feminist forum and pretend to think things that I don’t. And I’m not sure why it’s of value to waste women’s energy on arguing false positions with each other 🤷🏽‍♀️
Apologies to all if I’m missing the point.

I can see why, without the context of the discussion that led to this thread being created. I'll see if I can link to the specific post from a different thread that would provide that. If not, I'll copy and paste it here. Bear with me!

i didn't realise steel-manning involved all this debate and playing characters and deception etc. i thought it just meant 'set out the strongest position of the opposite side' (in contrast to straw-manning where you only set out their weakest position).

So surely we could have a thread where OP says 'Here is my steelman for transrights' and others could critique. then another poster could pop-up and say 'well here is my steelman' and other could critique etc.

each person can clearly ID their post as 'Here is a steelman' or not as they like, and the discussion can proceed.

You don't have to. I think we could only have a small number of people playing a character anyway. We would still need the majority of posters to be challenging them on their views.

As for why, for me personally, it would be to really challenge myself to see whether I can see any merit in the opposing viewpoint. The trouble with taking a "no debate" stance is that it tends to make you into a crap debater. So I'm not sure whether I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments because there is no merit in them, or because the people who believe these things are so bad at arguing their case.

This place can be a bit of an echo chamber at times, and every time a genuine poster comes along and tries to put forward the gender identity argument, it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. I like to think I'm a better debater than they are, which is why I'd like to have a go at arguing the other side.

This is where steel-manning came up as a "thing", then it was picked up again a few comments later (next page I think):

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4915661-what-to-do-about-nice-but-misguided-people?reply=129848951&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Early on when I first heard about GI theory, I just had this feeling of it being incorrect but I couldn't really say why. So I thought about it and part of that thought process included working out the best arguments for GI that I could. None of them caused me to conclude that it would be better if we restructured society baced on GI rather than sex, but I did feel more sure in why I had that 'this is wrong' feeling.

I guess that's why Margot suggested this steel man idea. If you go through the very bests arguments for each viewpoint, it helps you understand the issue more fully and clarifies where you, yourself stand.

Plus, it is a classic acadmic task where you argue the opposite to what you believe. 🙂

I'm not keen on the idea. The theory is good but I don't think that it would work in practice.

1 As mentioned previously, it could be selectively screenshotted by certain parties as evidence against MN.
2 The whole idea is to debate. But we know that certain parties never debate, never provide definitions, never answer questions, never come back to the thread ... so what are these Steel People going to say to represent that section?

'So surely we could have a thread where OP says 'Here is my steelman for transrights' and others could critique. then another poster could pop-up and say 'well here is my steelman' and other could critique etc.

each person can clearly ID their post as 'Here is a steelman' or not as they like, and the discussion can proceed.'

This would be straightforward.

That sounds a bit more open and tractable.

I found the endless hypothetical sticker scenario debates with Felix tedious and irrelevant and they disrupted the genuine content of the threads.

I'm not here for parlour games. If I want to get involved in a moot, I'll go to my own Law Faculty on a Friday afternoon and watch the students.

Some eejit will get carried away acting out a stereotype. Not the place for that here, imo.

It will become screenshot fodder, a thread title won't stop that.

Parietal's suggestion has more appeal.

Plus as someone who is not NT, I just don't see the point. I'm here for what's happening in real life.

To put it bluntly.

Don't think that works on the App. I've just changed my username and posted on a thread I am on with another username and it kept my new username.

If that makes sense?

Although doesn't surprise me, nothing works on the App!!

I agree with Errol that even an Oxford Union style debate is likely to backfire and be used against us. This is not a game or an intellectual exercise as we all sadly know.

and it will still be confusing for others and yes like herding cats.

Also if the trans ideology wants to make a case then they should do it themselves.. we shouldn’t help make their illogical and disordered arguments any more understandable.

Plus there are aspects we would never be allowed to discuss so that limits the arguments on both sides.

IMO the trans agenda, in keeping with the spirit of “reframing”, puts forward only the most palatable aspects, not the whole truth. That is a big part of the problem in getting people to see what’s really going on.

I agree this is a men’s rights ideology but also think that it has very particular features of mental illness/ personality disorder/ traumatised thinking/ disordered etc that make it as much a psychological phenomenon as a political one.

We shouldn’t buy into interpreting delusional thinking as being an intellectual exercise. It just really isn’t. (I say that with experience of unwell and disordered people and with empathy for feelings of distress, not necessarily with the actions that result from it, and definitely not when those actions harm women and girls.)

But how can we have a proper debate and write, even with compassion, for example about aspects of mental illness that we are not allowed to discuss? It shouldn’t be seen as disparagement but it will be. I will probably get deleted just for my last comments. And that is exactly the problem.

We already know that the basic arguments essentially rely on “be kind” and emperor’s new clothes.

I just don’t see how the steelmanning suggestion moves us forward although I know the suggestion was well intended.