Trans Ideology - a real life debate

[Forester1]

So something that is far too rare - a proper debate

For me positions can be summarised as:

Mark Glenening - free speech paramount - and shouldnt have compelled speech
Helen Joyce - Single sex spaces are needed - males need to keep out - however they identify
Freda Wallace - Me, me, me, my sex life, me
Peter Tatchell - Akin to fight for gay rights, black rights. I don’t see any issues. Be kind.

Which of his arguments were decent?

I always liked this video:

How lovely! Congratulations!

Thoroughly enjoyed watching this ‘debate’. Tatchell doesn’t come across as very bright at all- he didn’t seem to understand many of the arguments or questions being put to him; instead just issuing platitudes and soundbites and hoping no-one would notice. The bit about generalisations was ridiculous. We shouldn’t make generalisations he says, so someone reasonably and logically says if that’s the case, then surely we should just have mixed spaces as we can’t generalise about male behaviour. That question was put to him (and further explained) at least twice and his response was ‘something something transwomen.’ 🤔 And confidently stating that the audience all had a gender identity. The cheek!

His attempts to stop Freda drinking were hilarious though. Don’t want to comment on Fred at all other than to say that he is very much the sort of man I would be scared to be alone with.

Well, she's my rock, so I'm expecting rock solidness. That's how it's been for two decades. One of the reasons I come on here is to talk about things that she can only help me a little with.

The ladies of MN are the "other women", lol.

I thought PT was very careful with his language - for example saying that there’s been no issues at the schools he’s involved with. He’s not saying that there’s no issues at schools.

Also the audience wasn’t chosen - the IEA published the event and anyone could request tickets. Though I imagine it appealed more to those with GC views. But would be interesting to have a similar debate in Universities - but that would involve giving a platform to those with GC views.

Thoroughly enjoyed watching this ‘debate’. Tatchell doesn’t come across as very bright at all- he didn’t seem to understand many of the arguments or questions being put to him

I think he's sustained several bad bouts of brain damage from having the shit kicked out of him, as a serial protester against the kinds of things that people who like kicking the shit out of others tend to find close to their hearts. Probably not the ideal candidate now for a structured, Q&A style debate like this. It's sad.

Gosh, i really really hate the idea that he may be cognitively impared due to getting too many (any) kickings though. That's awful

Yes, that’s a terrible thought.

You are dead to me!

Brandy soaked cake and not even a slither to share between us.

Dead!

Congratulations😁

Don't blame me, blame our guests. They were less well behaved than Freda Wallace let loose in a wine cellar. Devoured the cake like a plague of locusts.

Never mind I'll eat my own cake instead

That's the spirit.

Just found this Guardian article from 2009 where he talks about it at length. Multiple beatings and head injuries throughout his life, and how the damage inflicted from these affects him. Shocking, I had no idea. I don’t think he should be engaging in this sort of public debate as he clearly isn’t up to it.

Still nauseated though about the paedo-apologist letter he wrote to the Guardian.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/20/peter-tatchell-retires-interview

From his history I would have thought PT would realise why it is important that women are protected from men in places such as refuges, and why single sex care matters when you are in hospital. He should also realise that many women have short hair because they like it but also due to medical conditions/surgery which really doesn’t make them men or change who they fancy if they are straight. The same as stereotyped female clothes does not maketh the woman.

I don’t think he should be engaging in this sort of public debate as he clearly isn’t up to it.

He has as much right to engage in the debate as the next person. There are plenty of people without brain injuries who come up with equally batshit arguments. If he wasn't up to it he wouldn't do it.

Multiple beatings and head injuries throughout his life, and how the damage inflicted from these affects him.

Just thinking about the number of women in prison for whom this would also be true. And they may well be gaslit by everyone round them into sharing premises and even a cell with a representative of the class who administered those injuries and beatings.

New research has found that 78% of women prisoners in Scotland have a history of significant head injury – most of which occurred in the context of domestic abuse that often lasted over periods of several years.
The University of Glasgow-led study – funded by the Scottish Government and published today in the Lancet Psychiatry – also found 66% of women prisoners had suffered repeat head injuries for many years. The majority of the study participants were from the most deprived population quintile.

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2021/may/headline_792437_en.html

I had no idea either. It probably helps to explain why he feels so strongly about backing a minority i.e. there is some actual conviction there.
BUT if he has experienced any cognitive impairment (this isn't clear either way - lots of people who believe in gender identity say similar things to Peter) it really isn't great that he is centre stage here. My sympathy for him wanes considerably though with his letters about the age of consent. On balance it's a firm no thank you to what Peter has to say in this debate. He's not remotely interested in listening to what Helen or Mark Glendenning were saying and he offered no substance of any merit in return. I feel the same whenever I have listened to him on TV too because he seems far more interested in gaslighting everyone in to a belief that gender identity is a truth than listening to any alternative views.

@RethinkingLife, yes that’s shocking and I have a whole lot more sympathy for those women than I do PT.

@Signalbox, yes I agree he has a right and that there is plenty of batshittery from people without brain injuries, but I mean I just don’t think he is up to it, cognitively. Appearing in a debate like this is embarrassing for him but I don’t feel particularly sorry for him, while obviously condemning what was done to him.

I just think we should leave the undermining comments about people with brain injuries out of it. It's not a good look and there will be plenty of people with brain injuries or cognitive disabilities on our side of this debate who will also feel undermined by this sort of talk. Isn't it better to debate the argument rather than make disparaging remarks about someone's cognitive abilities?

There’s plenty of people who have brain injuries who do not have these views either. And can articulate their views very well. It depends on what part has been damaged. The common factor is tiredness - I have no idea how he could do 14 hour days like he said in that article.

Sorry you felt my comments were disparaging @Signalbox. That wasn’t my intention.

My reply crossed with yours @Signalbox - that wasn’t a reply to you!

Well yes that would certainly be grounds for dismissal. That’s hardly being pushed from their job for being trans. That’s sexual harassment.

Yes, it's part of the propaganda, isn't it? It's always the fault of bigots, never as a result of their own actions.