Its all very terribly complicated, you see

[Morningmeeting]

The response ' the questions aren't simple and neither are the answers.'

Seems to be a standard TRA response for failing to be able to answer the most basic questions about their core concepts or for failing to define the absolute most key terms in their position.

They seem to have redefined this as a virtue, as if it shows how clever and complicated their position is, far too clever for those simpletons who expect basic coherence in foundational concepts.

How can they honestly not see how this is a self-serving and frankly stupid line of argument to take?

If you can't defend your key position, its probably because its not defensible.

[OldCrone]

If it's so complicated that intelligent, educated adults can't understand it, it's far too complicated to be teaching it to children. So they can keep their genderist ideology out of schools.

If it's so complicated that it can't be defined for legal purposes, then it has no place in any laws. So they should stop trying to change laws to incorporate their genderist ideology.

[HagoftheNorth]

To broadly quote one London politician,

if it’s too complicated for you to explain it to the general public, that’s probably because you don’t understand it properly yourself

[sockarefootwear]

I find the 'it's all too complicated for logic, just accept that it is' argument very similar to the response religions give to uncomfortable questions (eg. why does God allow terrible things to happen to children?)

But most religious people I know respect the fact that I don't follow their religion. I have had interesting, respectful, discussions about beliefs with religious friends (including members of the clergy). Unfortunately, these sort of discussions are not possible with TRAs. I also would not want safeguarding and safety of women, girls and vulnerable people to be overridden based on the religious beliefs of one group and this is, thankfully, not the way our laws work nowadays.

I view the TRA response as similar to religious extremists. They want their belief to be accepted by everyone as the only acceptable belief and want to silence anyone that disagrees, however respectfully they try to disagree. They want this belief to override any other considerations.

There are less extreme transmen and transwomen (who we hear from on this board sometimes) who are happy to have sensible discussions and understand differences of opinion/safeguarding concerns etc

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

I view the TRA response as similar to religious extremists. They want their belief to be accepted by everyone as the only acceptable belief and want to silence anyone that disagrees, however respectfully they try to disagree. They want this belief to override any other considerations.

Yes, this, exactly.

[PurpleBugz]

We really shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it. We risk getting frown lines!

[WickedSerious]

It's about as complicated as working out how many toes the average human being has.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

The response ' the questions aren't simple and neither are the answers.'

It struck me as just a pat response to close down the thread. It's completely inane.

[Morningmeeting]

@HagoftheNorth

To broadly quote one London politician,

if it’s too complicated for you to explain it to the general public, that’s probably because you don’t understand it properly yourself

100% this!

[Morningmeeting]

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The response ' the questions aren't simple and neither are the answers.'

It struck me as just a pat response to close down the thread. It's completely inane.

But this was essentially the response given by genderists in court cases and gender studies academics too, when asked to explain what gender identity is! ‘Oh it’s very complicated!’

Lots of specialists areas work with complicated ideas. They can still define and explain them’. Only gender ideologues fail on this. The only explanation for this is that their ideas don’t stack up in the first place.

[lifeturnsonadime]

It's not complicated at all.

Anyone who is not female should stay out of women's single sex spaces.

Children should not be taught that if they don't adhere to the sexist stereotypes that are attached to their sex then they must be the opposite sex or non -binary.

Anyone can wear what they want and love who they want & call themselves what they wish, what they can't do is to compel others to lie about who they are.

Simple.

Unless you believe that women are second class citizens and shouldn't have full rights which enable us to participate fully in society.

[Morningmeeting]

I suppose what I am saying is, that it seems, now that no debate has failed, and there is a debate, and gender ideologues are actually being exposed to scrutiny, their explanation for their failure to meet this scrutiny challenge seems to now be, ‘well it’s all very complicated and your questions are too simple, and the answers are just too complicated as it’s all very complicated, so that’s why you are wrong, and too simplistic, to even ask me to expand on my position in the first place.’

It’s been repeated a lot from multiple sources, so it’s obviously an idea that’s gained currency in their circles, and presumably gives them comfort as to why they failed to withstand scrutiny, without having to face up to the fact that maybe it’s because their position doesn’t actually hold together

So their failure to answer becomes a fault of questioner, rather than a failure of the coherence of their position.

it’s such profound self deceit and intellectual dishonesty.

Honestly, they accuse us of being an echo chamber, but we can actually meet the challenge of scrutiny of our position and they fail every single time.

[Morningmeeting]

@lifeturnsonadime

They are talking more here about their concepts which underlie their belief in gender identity and that it’s gender identity that matters more than sex.

They can’t actually explain what that is or why it’s more important. Or why it’s not based on sexist stereotypes. Or anything. They can’t really explain anything.

I’ve been following this debate for ten years. So that’s at least ten years they’ve had to develop a coherent position and they haven’t.

[Waitingfordoggo]

Genderists cannot answer the questions coherently and when they attempt to, many of them contradict things that other gender worshippers have said. In the last few days on MN, one poster said that some people’s gender doesn’t match their sex and ‘it isn’t rocket science’. But then within two days, others are trying to tell us it’s all very complicated and even scientists don’t understand it all yet. 🙄

That explains why it was ‘no debate’ for so long. And now it’s ’oh, it’s too complicated to explain’ or even ‘well I don’t really understand it either but I just believe everything these people tell me’.

The other way they sometimes avoid answering questions is to say that it is ‘emotional labour’ for them and therefore very tiring. They should try saying some things that make sense and then they wouldn’t find it quite so exhausting.

[popebishop]

The most arrogant is the "why can't you accept this thing I refuse to explain? "

As per that thread, believe what you like, just don't be dishonest about it.

If you find you literally don't know the answer to "what do you mean by this word (that you keep insisting I don't understand)" maybe you shouldn't be using the word, much less lobbying to have laws based on it?

It's all a bit "well, you know what that group of people are like"
"No I don't actually, what are they like? "
"Oh you know... everyone knows..."
"No, I don't"
"Well, I can't exactly say..."

Where have I heard that sort of bollocks before....

It wouldn't be an echo chamber if we ever got the answer to one of the very basic questions.
I've no idea whether the AMA TW was genuine or a put-up but at least they confirmed their beliefs, offensive as they were.

[popebishop]

Yes on one thread there was approx 100 posts of talking at cross purposes before "oh by female I didn't mean actually female"
That is not someone who is aiming to explain what they believe.

[MarieDeGournay]

OldCrone
....If it's so complicated that it can't be defined for legal purposes, then it has no place in any laws...
This is such an important point, OldCrone! I don't understand how lawmakers, lawgivers and lawyers can be happy to work with a word that they can't define.
They can be so punctilious about language and meaning in other contexts but just accept 'gender' .. Weird.

[pickledandpuzzled]

Oh, and ‘I don’t want to get bogged down in talking about toilets’. And women are abusers too.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

The most arrogant is the "why can't you accept this thing I refuse to explain?"

Yes! It's astonishingly arrogant.

[PriOn1]

The thing is that if you do remove sex as the deciding factor on which groups women and men should be in and replace it with gender identity, it does become incredibly complicated.

Rather than a straightforward…
Are you female?
Yes.
You belong in women’s spaces.

…you start to run into incredibly difficult decisions regarding which men should be placed in the women’s spaces. How far should they have to go physically or medically? Are there ever times they should be excluded? How can you make sports fair? What about rapists?

No wonder when the discussion really gets under way, women advocating for women have a far easier argument to make.

[Datun]

I think some people genuinely believe in a concept like Freaky Friday.

That, for instance, a girl will be looking out of her eyes believing that she's a boy.

And of course, it falls apart on questioning, the first question being, but why does she?

Although I have to say, trotting out lines like gender roles and expressions, but refusing to ever give even a single example of one of them, does hint a little more at indoctrination.

It's all a very useful example of the nonsensical nature of it though.

[Morningmeeting]

you start to run into incredibly difficult decisions regarding which men should be placed in the women’s spaces

oh on the practical implications, they suddenly claim it’s very simple. Any male who claims he is a woman is allowed in women’s spaces without exception or question. In fact, the male shouldn’t even need to state it. We should just assume they are a woman because they have walked into the space. That’s all very simple.

It’s actually when asked to rationalize and justify this position where they suddenly claim it’s all very complicated, far too complicated to explain, and merely asking them to do so means you are unreasonable for needing ‘simple’ answers.

in fact ‘simple’ seems to be their latest example of changing the meaning of words. What we are actually asking them to do is explain how their position makes sense, intellectually and morally, but they have redefined ‘making sense’ as ‘simplistic’.

[literalviolence]

It does amaze me when seemingly sensible people can't see that they need definitionsnfor core terms on which they build pressure on women to allow males into their spaces or be called a bigot. Based on the fact that they're both female. Which doesn't mean female. But I won't tell you what it does mean.

[Morningmeeting]

Although I have to say, trotting out lines like gender roles and expressions, but refusing to ever give even a single example of one of them, does hint a little more at indoctrination

Yes. It’s like people have been told your gender ( undefined) is not your sex. Instead it’s your role and expression ( what else could it be). But they have never stopped to think what those words mean. Or that believing in gender roles and expression is obviously in direct opposition to their objection to sexist stereotypes.

So when this is pointed out, they have to ignore the question. Because answering it would cause their whole belief system to collapse.

[Froodwithatowel]

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I view the TRA response as similar to religious extremists. They want their belief to be accepted by everyone as the only acceptable belief and want to silence anyone that disagrees, however respectfully they try to disagree. They want this belief to override any other considerations.

Yes, this, exactly.

That. Historically the plebs have always been told that no one can really understand these things but the priests themselves, and to just shut up, believe and do what they're told. This is always what religious extremism looks like when it has a go at coercive control. Getting an abused woman to run around trying to 'understand' her abuser and why he does what he does, (Gosh he's so complex), is also a very well known tactic that keeps her there a bit longer to be abused.

Not to mention as I think it was Pronouns said the other day in a brilliant post, so much of all this relies on Disneyfication and stories grown around to cover up and hide the very grotty underbelly. Which is the main driving force and the point, but not even this movement has the front to believe they'd get away with it (yet) without the pretty figleaves.

[popebishop]

Yes. It’s like people have been told your gender ( undefined) is not your sex

That's true, but remember, your sex is also your gender.