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?

The Forstater judgement was a game changer for me - because it meant that my belief (in reality!) couldn’t be ignored. It gave me the confidence to start speaking openly in professional settings.

Tbh I’m not that bothered about being likeable, which I know can be an issue for some women. Only you will know when it’s right for you to speak out. But please don’t dismiss the value of meeting other women who share your views because irl we don’t necessarily need more debate, we need action.

Having these conversations in real life has given me the confidence to start to (tentitively) raise it in the workplace and kids school. What I haven’t tried to do - and don’t intend to - is to convert anyone who believes TWAW. But there’s still millions of people who don’t hold a particular view as they haven’t really thought about it. And so I do try to encourage some people to find out more. Though I’m clear that I believe sex is more important than gender.

You don't need to tell me that!

I had hopes for that Andy Lewis debate, with Aaron Rabinowitz, via longer form letters. Shame it fizzled out.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4441324-GC-British-guy-debating-US-sceptic

I had tiny hopes for even RMW in the article about "what is a woman", where Maya provided her side. Nothing even to read there.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546679-maya-and-robin-on-what-is-a-woman-personnel-today

There's nothing ever actually there. I think it's why I'm intrigued by the court cases. What they come up with when there's no option but to give an answer, any answer. It's telling how feeble they are when trying to seem reasonable.

@popebishop Yes, the court cases are much needed. It's so illuminating when people like Mermaids and the LGBT Consortium have no option but to explain what they actually believe.

Interesting thread, interesting idea!

However I can’t help thinking if there were any “steel arguments” for gender ideology we’d’ve heard them by now, from the regular drive-bys of trans allies and defenders. The only new arguments we hear from them are “Lucy Letby!” and “facial calipers!” - some of them are so bonkers I sometimes wonder if they’re gender critical MN regulars just ‘avin’ a larf.

Maybe to try this out we could post some 'steel man' arguments to this thread and then others can choose to either respond to the argument or steel them up even more?

I like the idea of proper debating threads. I have had lots of good information I can use in real life from this site.
There’s no need to pretend surely?

I had hopes for that Andy Lewis debate, with Aaron Rabinowitz, via longer form letters. Shame it fizzled out.

That Aaron guy was a complete idiot. But of course he and all his friends identified as being unable to be wrong. Really sneery and arrogant, while also being poorly informed and irrational/illogical.

i don't think this is a bad idea at all, whether done in a debate style or just presenting the best versions of gender ideology viewpoints.

What I would suggest is that there are several different, distinct ways of thinking that tend to accept gi, and they can be mutually exclusive, so you can't expect that they fit together or anything like that.

@MargotBamborough I am completely with you on being afraid and the idea that "practice debates" help to address this before going out and trying it IRL. That's exactly how I felt before each stage of finding my feet in all of this.

One thing that I've found which works really well for me IRL is a) thinking of my own views as a belief ("I believe that sex is immutable") and positioning it that way. I also use empathy and religious analogy a LOT. I imagine how a Christian would feel if I, as an atheist, were to challenge something they said. I also avoid the equivalent of gender identity equivalent of a debate about the paternity of Jesus, for example. To put some context around that: I was on a Twitter thread talking about gender identity as a belief and a Christian was refuting this, saying it (gender identity) wasn't a belief, it was a delusion. Their justification/example was that Christians don't deny biology. I thought long and hard about how to respond to that, because I genuinely don't want to challenge a Christian's belief. But in the end I went with carefully saying that an atheist and a Christian do differ in their beliefs on biology and that the paternity of Jesus was an example of this.

My point being that I constantly think of this kind of empathy when I'm discussing gender identity. The analogy with religion helps me a lot.

I'm very aware that people who believe in gender identity, that we have an innate "gendered soul", don't see it as a belief but that still doesn't deter me or change how I frame things. "I'm not trying to challenge your belief. I'm only interested in talking about the impacts of it". I'm about to have probably the most interesting and challenging IRL conversation yet (I'm already talking to schools and my MP).... I have whistleblown at work about the misrepresentation of the EA in our policies and also the compelled belief in both the mandatory whole company and voluntary allyship training. It's currently at the point where I have "come out" (stepped out of anonymity, but still covered under whistleblowing law) to a small number of senior people and I'm about to have a facilitated conversation with the head of EDI. It's the kind of company that's big enough for that to be a paid role.. When I have the conversation, I'm going to imagine how the EDI head would feel if she (it is a woman) were a transwoman..... Lots of empathy and lots of talk about belief. My aim is to get the policy and training changed. We'll see what happens. Hopefully I won't lose my job but I'm not going to let this go unchallenged - I want to actively do my bit. If it comes to it, and I do get dismissed, I'll continue via a tribunal. My eventual aim in all of this is to speak out, particularly about the harms to children, without any need for anonymity. I'm slowly working my way there. I'm also aware that at some point, that could be taken out of my hands and I could be doxxed. I'm getting more and more confident should that happen too.

Back to the main topic of this thread: I'm still completely up for a practice debate if it helps people to find their voice. Without this board on Mumsnet, there is no way I would have found mine.

Thinking about beliefs is part of the reason for my skepticism about this idea.
I used to be a Christian; I know quite a lot of the arguments and rationalisations - I used to believe them! But I don't now, and I don't think I could present a good defence of them.

I had a great training ground on this one... My own kids!

They had no idea I was an atheist for years. The primary school is very religious, even though it's not a church school and our local vicar is fab. She goes in the school a lot and has a great rapport with kids of all ages. My kids used to ask me various questions and I always answered with "What the church will tell you is....." and then I gave them all the answers that I knew from my days as a Christian. It's slightly different because I wanted them to sort of know that I wasn't giving them my own view, whilst also not making a big deal about it all. As they got older they worked out that I always started with this "prefix" .. and one of my kids asked me directly if I believed in God. I said no. I'm properly "out" now as an atheist but I kept it totally balanced in this way for years. I wanted them to make up their own minds. My eldest (autistic, gender "curious") has said that she does believe in God and she knows I'm totally fine about this.

Probably my favourite moment of empathy was when her sister told me that "Easter is important". She was very young at the time so I put my serious face on and nodded along, asking her why. I was expecting us to have a conversation about Jesus, given Easter was approaching at the time and the school was doing lots on it.. And the answer came back "Because we get Easter eggs!". I think I said something like "I agree but that's not quite how the church sees it".

In order to "authentically" argue the case for Christianity or gender identity in a debate where I was assuming the "role" of a beliver, I would channel the same approach. I'd just drop the caveat/prefix at the beginning.

I'm fascinated by this idea. I quite often have arguments in my head where I try and see issues from both points of view. And in fact, on most issues I think I have a pretty good grasp of my opponents' arguments, and could adopt either position in debate without too much difficulty.

I'd be prepared to try and put forward the trans activist argument as best I can, but if I'm truthful, I find it utterly incoherent, irrational and, above all, inconsistent - their arguments change all the time. So it's very hard to put forward a good representation of the trans activist line when the flaws in it are so immediately apparent.

As part of my work on "trying to understand it from the other side", I've just watched a coming out video posted by someone who is married to a friend of mine.

The two of them met a few years after my friend and I were living near each other, so I have only met this person briefly once. They are both practising Christians, and my friend has been open about her own mental health struggles, which predate her spouse coming out as trans. I noticed her using non binary "they" pronouns when talking about them a few months ago, and then just recently she shared a video introducing the new name "Jessica" and she/her pronouns, like, "Surprise! I'm a woman now!"

I hope my friend is doing OK. In the video Jessica credits her with encouraging the transition and being the best and most supportive wife ever.

I never know what to say in situations like this. It almost feels like you're expected to say something, to demonstrate support, but I don't really know what to say which wouldn't feel hypocritical, given all my concerns about this issue. It's the second such "coming out" I've seen in recent months, in both cases someone in a traditional heterosexual marriage with a wife and children, and both cases Christians if I remember correctly. The previous time I was connected to the trans person on social media rather than their wife, so I settled for completely ignoring the coming out announcement but liking their next non trans related status.

Back to this coming out video. To my non-expert eye, this did not look the expression of joyful relief at finally being able to be one's true self. It actually came across as quite bitter. There was a weird bit aimed at other Christians who might disapprove, telling them God was behind the coming out, and a bit at the end basically saying, "If you don't still like me after this, well, I never liked you anyway!"

Deeply weird. It has not done anything to convince me that being trans really is about pursuing happiness and being your authentic self. It made me feel quite sorry for everyone involved, to be honest.

And I still don't know whether to contact my friend or not. If I send her a message saying I hope everything is OK she might interpret that as, "Oh dear how terrible, your husband has come out as trans." Which is not what I want to say and almost certainly not what she wants to hear.

It makes me wish I were a proper Christian so I could just say I would pray for her and her family, because that seems to cover all bases.

They had no idea I was an atheist for years.

@BonfireLady - That’s how my parents were! The first I heard of God or Jesus was at school, must have been Christmas as we were told the Nativity. I remember telling my Mum we’d had a lovely story that day, and she replied “lots of people think that story is true”.

I was 9 or 10 when my best friend’s Mum told me she didn’t believe in God, and I felt the most overwhelming relief, because I didn’t either and back then, 1960s/70s, atheism was not the norm. My parents were atheists but it wasn’t until I’d twigged there was no God and asked them about it that they ever talked about it. They let us decide for ourselves.

I was much less balanced when my 5-year old niece mentioned “Hell” in my presence and I was so furious her school was teaching such a little impressionable child about such a ghastly concept as HELL FFS, I told her it was all made up and designed to frighten children into being good.

Yes. I hadn't heard of 'steel manning' but the OP instantly told me it's intended as a debate - a real one; the kind the transborg will not have.

Anyone who's done debating understands the principle. Those 'pretending to think things they don't think' are obliged to put the views they're representing as persuasively as possible, in good faith. People who couldn't do this aren't expected to do it!

I'd volunteer; I used to love debating, but probably can't handle the commitment to marshalling all the opposition's views and staying online for the duration. I'll definitely look forward to it, though. (I may join in with my devil's advocation, though.)

I think it should be clearly set up and signposted as a debate.

This sounds like a very tough situation, and probably a thread in itself. Although I don't think it's possible to derail your own thread, so you're all good 😉

Personally in this situation I'd stay well away from any conversation about this subject and I'd just say something like "I'm very happy for you both that this makes you happy together". I'd mean it too. Although I'd privately be very concerned about a transwidow hostage situation.. and I'd be looking out for that. If either of them asked me overtly if I believed TWAW or similar, I'd be honest and say no. Not too dissimilar to how I'd react if a friend became a Scientologist and then asked me if I believed L Ron Hubbard is correct in how human life was formed. If they choose to end the friendship, I'd make it clear that I still cared.... and then let them go... Knowing that I would wait without judgement should things change.

@GarlicGrace @BonfireLady Well I would definitely be up for doing it, taking into account the feedback received on this thread about it being clearly signposted.

And yes absolutely, I think part of the challenge needs to be putting forward the viewpoint you are representing as sincerely, compellingly and respectfully as possible.

inconsistent - their arguments change all the time. So it's very hard to put forward a good representation of the trans activist line when the flaws in it are so immediately apparent.

This is why I really loved the "character" idea, although I do also understand the downsides. To me, this is the Malaga Airport (advice from another thread... I love a 3 letter acronym) approach. The sleight of hand to swap things around as needed suggests a non-believer to me. It's a very different argument from someone who genuinely believes that they have a gendered soul and comes from a place of distress. Some of the prominent Malaga Airport folk online are very, very adept at creative sleight of hand on the spot. The footsoldiers who don't seem to have dysphoria are also easy to spot because they just parrot it, and then get stuck and shout "bigot". I suspect most footsoldiers are either believers or agnostic.

Going back to religion, I'd suggest it's questionable whether the "bad apples" that are attracted to priesthood are believers (in God) too.

Sorry, what is the "Malaga Airport" reference?

Look up the international abbreviation for Malaga Airport.

😂👏

I don't know if I have steely senses or not, but they were tingling last night...

Regular lurker on MN feminist threads here occasionally poster. Have learnt a heck of a lot from you regulars on here, but I have to say I'm with @ErrolTheDragon . I think this could backfire magnificently, although it's an interesting experiment. I think it could come across as very manipulative unless open to supporters of both sides of the debate, as a genuine opportunity to "stand in the shoes" of those with the opposite stance.

I think this is an interesting thought exercise although taking on an allocated gender identity role in the iron man thing would require a lot of ‘just do it because I said so’ wouldn’t there? Which is precedes to the ‘bigot!’ accusation if you don’t immediately capitulate. So I think getting a normally argued debate out of that is very hard. You would be trying to debate a belief system between a believe and non-believer. I also agree about screen shots and parlour games accusations being made. It feels like MN isn’t the right place.

I think my personal focus is on persuading agnostic middle ground people including MPs of GC issues. I don’t know if a formatted debate is always the best way to do that or is necessary training for that. Just having a conversation about everyday issues like going to a clothes shop, swimming pool or elderly care, I find quickly spotlights the sticking points with the TRA demands. No debate skills as such required.

But it’s true that debate skills are very important in specific areas. For example I think legal change is the key to making changes on the ground in this whole area. And debate skills are always a huge part of contributing to that process. Especially for anyone who is going to be talking about this publicly in the media.

The framing around belief described here is very effective and I like that it is squeaky clean respectful. So to me that it is a really important way forward in conversation or debate. It’s been really helpful to read more about that.