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?

OK. Some good points made. Maybe it's something that won't work as things stand.

Here is a Steel Man: the disproportionate negative impact of “Women’s Rights” on late transitioning Trans women demonstrates that it is primarily driven by bigotry. If you cared about Trans people you wouldn’t take the actions you do.

Is that good enough to get us started?

That's a great question. It gets right to the heart of rights conflict.
How about we try it out in this thread....?
If anyone reads the thread who isn't interested in steel-manning, they'll move on. If someone wants to try it by challenging that question from GC perspective, I'm happy to defend it from the "other side".

If we try it out in this thread, everyone knows from the context of the thread what's going on. If screenshots of me (with my username) appear anywhere I'm not going to worry. If someone is duplicitous enough to copy something I've said "in character" and frame it as my real view, good luck to them.

The only down side of doing it this far down the thread is that it may be a little lost. @MargotBamborough if you wanted to try it out on a new thread, I'm open to just giving it a go. I wouldn't change my username but otherwise, I'm happy with whatever parameters/rules I'm given to work within. If it flops, what have we lost?

I would suggest a new thread, @BonfireLady.

I'd also suggest three distinct "characters" who might argue in favour of the gender identity side, with each person trying their best to remain in character, because there are definitely various different angles to the opposing side.

Just throwing some ideas out there:

• 30 year old professional woman who works in a very left wing environment and believes TWAW because it's kind, and pretty much everyone else she knows believes likewise

• post op trans person who transitioned 20 years ago

• youngish person who has recently come out as trans and is on a waiting list for a gender clinic

• middle aged gay man who sees TWAW as the latest civil rights issue and the natural continuation of the gay rights movement

• 40 something mother of a trans identifying child

• a Labour MP

What other possibilities can people think of?

I'd suggest, as a minimum, that one character has some real skin in the game, i.e. they are trans themselves or their child is, and that one character has no personal skin in the game but is coming at this from the point of view that trans people are very vulnerable.

No, sorry, I think pretending to be a 'character ' is really off.

Fucking hell. You want people on here to pretend to be a post op trans person or the mother of a trans child (amongst other characters) For a game?

You do know that there are mothers on here with children who say they are trans? How do you think they will feel watching your game play out?
Have you had an empathy by pass?

I'm going to have to hide this thread as it's giving me the rage.

Looks like this probably isn't going to go fly.
FWIW @MargotBamborough I think it was a great idea to try it out.
I also think it would have been possible to do it empathetically with character styles. However, it seems like it's not to be and not something that's of general interest.

Anyway, on a positive note it does demonstrate that this isn't an echo chamber. We're often accused of that.

On a personal note, I'm smiling a little at the irony that I've been a part of something that's too "out there". Up until now, I've mostly been either "too balanced" or, most commonly, "policing people's language".

Anyway, fair play to everyone who has offered an opinion on here. It's a great place to try thoughts out and I'm glad we've got it as a forum. One thing I learned during this whole time I've been on Mumsnet (and it's not always been a fun lesson) is that it doesn't matter if people disagree with me. In fact it's often far more of an interesting conversation if there isn't universal agreement.

I don't know, @BonfireLady, there did seem to be a reasonable amount of interest before the last two posters chimed in.

Isn't empathy supposed to be about putting yourself in someone else's shoes and trying to imagine how you would feel if you were that person?

Not doing it because one person has decreed that it offends them is a bit like cancelling Harry Potter events in your school library because a handful of people say JK Rowling is "problematic".

Obviously I would love to be able to debate this properly with people who actually believe these things and are capable of putting forward a strong argument for them, but their position is "no debate".

It might be a great idea to try out, face to face or via DMs in a group who know and play by the set rules, but I don't really think that steelmanning would work well as a format on MN and especially in feminism- it seems too open to misinterpretation and derailment.

There's too many uncontrollable factors in an entirely open forum, posters who maybe dont read the whole thread or rules but get stuck in anyway, posters who might be personally affected by issues and so not appreciate the concept of steel manning them, posters who get turned off by the intellectual dilettantism of the whole thing,

I don't know, @BonfireLady, there did seem to be a reasonable amount of interest before the last two posters chimed in

Yes, I'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for these blasted kids ....

You asked for opinions.
You asked what could possibly go wrong.
More than two people have given views.

But you do you.

I've no power to shut you down or tell you there is no debate.
So don't pretend my comments are stopping you playing characters, because I disagreed strongly with you, and I am no fun.

Oh and this board is no echo chamber, as you can see.

That's fine, @LarkLane. No one is obliged to participate in any thread they don't like.

The reason I suggested that someone should debate from the point of view of a trans person is that the debate would be incomplete without that point of view. Obviously any debates in this subforum are limited by the perspectives of the real people who choose to post in them.

More generally, trans people tend to take the view that they will not debate their right to exist in society. I can understand that the prospect of doing that when this is very real to you, and not theoretical, could be very upsetting. But the inevitable consequence of taking the stance that trans people exist as they identify and we should not be allowed to debate that, is having to accept that women are not allowed to exist as a distinct group defined by biological sex, and we must also not debate that.

The point of this exercise would be to have all perspectives represented. You can't do that without someone representing the trans person's perspective.

My expectation was that arguments would be made from different positions. Not as characters which I think would quickly become stereotypes.

I don't really see the distinction other than whether you're making the argument using first or third person pronouns.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting creating a whole identity and backstory for these hypothetical people, so maybe "characters" was the wrong word to use.

More like, "I am arguing from the perspective of someone who transitioned a long time ago and feels that they have been using women's single sex spaces for a long time without incident but have now become the subject of a culture war and is worried about their existing rights being rolled back."

It would be more natural to do that in the first person but it could be done either way I suppose.

It might possibly work if it was a poster clearly presenting an argument they'd seen made by someone elsewhere that they could - even if not agreeing with it - at least to some extent understand on an intellectual or emotional level? So that the starting point is a genuine one. Then, obviously, the poster can only make their best guess at how the position should be defended.

Any sort of 'role playing' runs the risk of trivialising the attempt to understand others' perspectives, make seem like a 'game' which really isn't apt.

I am so grateful for the wisdom of the women of MN over the years but @MargotBamborough the thing is I don’t need to win fake debates online because (like many women here) I am having these conversations in real life. Perhaps not as fulsomely as I’d like. But in a way that helps me move the dial just a little. If I want to hear gender ideology, I just need to ask my colleagues’ opinions. But these days (thanks to MN) I feel equipped to share my pov. Funnily enough, I have had less challenge than I was anticipating and a lot of behind the scenes support.

Occasionally I will join in a debate here with TRAs for the benefit of lurkers. It’s not something I need to do to prove anything to myself. But then I never saw the point in college debating society either 🤷🏽‍♀️

Interesting, @SorryAuntLydia. I don't often discuss this in real life.

But that does beg the question. If there is so much support for the gender critical position, and if those on the opposing side of the debate do not have good arguments or have good arguments but are not capable of articulating them, how have we got where we are today? How has this ideology become so mainstream?

I feel like I must be missing something because if it really is as mad as it all seems to me, why is it so widely accepted and why do people whose beliefs are grounded in biological reality only feel able to say so "behind the scenes"?

It's "trans people exist and shouldn't have to debate their existence because that would be dehumanising, but women don't exist and shouldn't be allowed to debate whether they exist or not because that would be dangerous".

It's "trans people exist and shouldn't have to debate their existence because that would be dehumanising, but women don't exist and shouldn't be allowed to debate whether they exist or not because that would be dangerous".-

My guess is that isn’t it- my guess (what I would uses in a steel manning argument) is that it’s ‘GC feminism is an existential threat to Transgenderism as a culture, political project, and personal goals. Why shouldn’t/wouldn’t we use every means available to us to ensure that we win?’

If that's what they mean then they should say so.

And then we could counter that with, "Gender identity theory is an existential threat to feminism and women's rights. Why should we not use equal means to ensure that we win the argument?"

As a general concept I think trying to understand, in good faith, someone's genuinely held position is a good thing, to test it out.

On this thread, it will descend into disingenuousness in seconds, I'm afraid.

The problem is, there aren't enough people with the opposing viewpoint even willing to discuss it on here, let alone ones who are able to actually explain their viewpoint.

How has this become so mainstream??

Well I guess the usual explanations. It’s a men’s rights movement so they obviously have influence. It has force teamed with lesbian and gay rights as well as people with DSDs. It was embedded by stealth. See the ‘Dentons’ document. It’s poorly reported and explained so most of the public think of trans as ‘old skool transsexuals’ rather than rapists in dresses or sad teens disfiguring their breasts. And money. Follow the money

What I’ve discovered is that most people treated me as mad or bad when I outed myself as a non-believer - they had been sold the idea that what I was saying was wrong. But they’d never really thought about it. Having the conversations irl has helped others see my pov. And that I’m neither mad nor bad. And for some it has allowed the niggle of discomfort in the back of their mind about GI to become an articulate thought.
I can’t persuade everyone - and that’s not my aim. I’m interested in protecting my rights to freedom of speech, thought and expression and to have my own beliefs plus my single-sex spaces. (I’m also interested in protecting women and children too)

because one of the means available is NOT (to borrow a phrase) saying the quiet bits out loud. No politician leads with the bad stuff- they do that after you have committed to the promises of goodies (but not the goodies themselves)!

Lots of very good points raised above.

Debate is something we should be able to do to help move society along to a position where different ideas can be accommodated next to each other. But annoyingly, it doesn't seem possible very often. The fear of speaking out with a GC-leaning view is still very real. The repercussions for doing so are still very real - not everyone wants to risk friendships ending by being labelled a "bigot" or risk their career (even winning a tribunal isn't necessarily that appealing if it means losing your job in the first place).

Good faith debates are fantastic but also very difficult to achieve. It's hard to know the full motivation of anyone taking part and we're all stuck in the same place - a clunky interface where, if it does go off in an odd direction, it can be difficult to bring back to the main point. It's not as difficult as twitter in that respect, as long form (on here) does give more scope for a decent train of thought to be shared.

I still like the concept and would still happily participate. I benefited so much from having this to test out my thoughts and listen to what others said before I had the confidence to try it out in real life. I guess there are different ways of getting to that point, and maybe "staged debate" isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Maybe I need to follow your lead and start having these conversations in real life then. This board is a great outlet but after a while it gets a bit repetitive just saying the same things to the same people all the time.

The truth is, I'm afraid.

There are plenty of kind, intelligent people in my life whose views I respect who I'm pretty sure would say that TWAW. And I'm afraid to discuss this with them. Because my fear is that if I did, either they would tell me they are also secretly gender critical and I would feel less alone but the debate wouldn't have moved forward at all, or they'd be horrified that I don't agree that TWAW and not want anything to do with me anymore. It's that extreme. The one thing I genuinely can't imagine happening is them confirming that they believe TWAW and being willing to debate that with me in a civilised way, without judgement and without the friendship being at risk if we end up agreeing to disagree.

Only my two very closest friends know my views on this, one of them is quite ambivalent and the other one is TWAW so we avoid the topic by mutual consensus because we don't want to fall out over it.