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.

Yes I agree

I love the way you can use Malaga Airport. As in

I suspect that Eddie Izzard passed through Malaga Airport on the way.

Harking back to Ugandan discussions, used for decades in Private Eye (very probably still used).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye

I've always had a bit of a crush on Matthew Lesh, which has only been intensified by watching him try to pretend he isn't startled to his core at almost everything that Freda says (especially when she starts talking about her female penis...)

Then by the time it did dawn on him that actually trans rights were nothing like what he'd been fighting for in regards to LGB rights, and that actually woman were going to be disproportionately negatively

I don’t think women exist in Peter’s thinking as equal humans. Same with other TRAs. Woman’s rights are not human rights to them as only men count as humans.

….I am now going into the loft to check my suitcases for airport labels. Not a euphemism!

Haha, no crush here, but respect to Lesh for keeping absolutely order as the soused and pickled Wallace tried to aggressively barge his way into every answer.

Could you imagine him pre-pandemic having to contend with a public debate where a panel member would talk about using his "female penis" with a lesbian or a Sex Matters GC supporting man? No, neither can I, our descent into isolatedness during lockdown and the ramping up of the new creeds by the professional managerial elites in 2020-21, has absolutely toxified and weaponised the TRA agenda and demands, crowbarring these into our public life.

I mean, at what point does society say, whoa, female penis and lesbians, female penis and men, and go, thank you, let's wrap it up, it was fun for you activists while it lasted, but reality called and it wants it's logic and boundaries back?

My eyes!My Eyes!

My innocent eeeeeeyes!!

I agree with Helen, it is unfair that Stonewall and those other big organisations won't join these panles. Yes, Freda makes an absolute tit of herself. She keeps interrupting and she rambles. But the others are all professional, and she's just a person who is there purely on the basis of their transness. It doesn't make us look good, to defeat someone like that in debate.

On the contrary, i think it shows several things. Firstly that the arguments for TWAW are not valid. And that because Stonewall et al know this, and they know that Helen Joyce and others are able to have a perfectly normal discussion about it, and rebut their claims, so they don't gain anything by turning up.

The bigger question for me is why do they just stand by and let people like Freda go public like this? Are they hoping for a sympathy vote or something? i find it very curious. A few more trans men would probably be welcome, in terms of broadening the debate. But from a GC point of view? The way it is now, letting them be their authentic selves and using their own words, in front of an audience, is the best argument for TWANW.

Let's get Iain Anderson on instead.
Ummmmm, oooooh, aaaaaah, errrrrrr, goshhhhhh.

I don’t agree. Debates between professionals become very academic. That is precisely why, up until more recently, they kept rolling out small cute ‘trans’ children and effectively dared people on live TV to tell them Santa Claus wasn’t real. Freda makes it clear exactly what we are objecting to, what their expectations actually are in real life. That men who frequent fetish clubs for sex and have no problems getting drunk, aggressive towards women even on TV, and are free with vile language, should be able to share a hospital ward vulnerable women.

Absolutely!

And as one of those "moderates" myself I will add the caveat that goes with me saying TWATW: I don't actually believe in gender identity. I am accommodating a belief that I don't hold but I'm not going to accommodate it in law as a truth. Helen's opening speech summed up my position nicely on that. Its accommodation should be similar to how religions are accommodated but laws should be based on what can be observed (sex, not gender identity) and the statistics that support this.
Even Peter must realise that his assertion that people's gender identity can be observed through their clothing choice goes against both what trans people say about gender expression vs gender identity AND what GC people say about the many examples of men and women who don't follow sex-based stereotypes. So on that one, he's on an island of his own. But even if he wasn't (stereotypes do exist for a reason - for example people who enjoy Malaga Airport may choose to wear revealing and sexualised clothes in situations that would normally not call for this type of clothing), laws can't be based around how people dress. If that'd been the case in the 80s all the New Romantic band members like in Duran Duran etc would have needed to make a choice to declare themselves female or swap the blouses and make-up for something that fitted in with Tatchell Law.

There was an interesting thread on MN which is now full which discussed the middle ground that Peter has now found himself on. The transwoman in that thread did a much better job of listening to and responding to the concerns of women than Freda did IMO. Also I think it was helpful on that thread that the transwoman's motivation came from a place of gender dysphoria (as I understood it). I'm not sure that's a clear motivation from the debate in this video.

Even as a "moderate" though, I'm not going to agree to ANY boundary violation. Women's spaces are for women, not transwomen. I also remain incredibly concerned about the impact of enforced belief on society as a whole (Mark Glendenning's opening speech) and in particular on adolescent autistic girls, who make up a significant proportion of those who present with gender dysphoria.

What does this even mean?

I think you need to take a big load of magic mushrooms and then, after about three hours, it'll all make perfect sense.

Still on page one. What is actually visible between Freda's legs?

Two Christmas Hams

I wonder how Freda is feeling today?

I'm not sure that flashing his testicles and saying he uses his 'ladypenis to fuck men in fetish clubs' was as much of a killer argument for being considered a lesbian as he thought.

😖

My assumption is that joining in in support of trans rights helps to focus public attention on what he's saying on this subject. If the attention can be kept here, it's not on his previous ramblings about love and age limits.

He's made a rod for his own back. The closer he gets to anything that sounds remotely gender critical (acknowledging that transwomen and women are different, for example) the harder he has to row in the opposite direction just to keep in with the TRA crowd (his utter nonsense about everyone having a gender identity and it being obvious from what they wear, for example).

I thought ball sack and then I thought, no, surely not.

Indeed. All very informative really. It paints a lovely picture of what the view from Malaga Airport might look like without anything in the way to block it. More wine, more debate 🍷 Even without the wine TBF.

It did leave me wondering if Freda knows the meaning of the word misogy. For example, how is the work that KPSS doing to support women in prisons misogynistic?

I need to go through this again with a stopwatch. I suspect Helen is so blunt is because she knows she wont be allowed time to rabbit on. Unlike some.

is the transgender lady Bagga Chipz from drag race?

To add: I would rather be contemplating the view from Malaga Airport than looking straight at the airport itself when it's clearly not been prepared for public viewing.