"The era of “no debate” must end", Andrew Doyle, contains excellent live video of Chester Storyhouse’s “Women Weekend”, Where all GCs had been disinvited

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-era-of-no-debate-must-end?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-5fddc793-be9a-47e9-9558-65be6a0cfcb4

Do share it to as many people as you think might react well.

Thanks Alpharius, good article and ditto clip of a courageous GC local councillor facing #nodebate. From that, it looked like there were more women protesting outside than listening to the TWAW mantra inside.

The concept of “no debate” is incompatible with a democratic and liberal society. Reasonable people are never persuaded by threats, intimidation or censorship, and so ultimately the tactics of these activists will ensure their own failure.

Totally agree with him on this.

The clip of the councillor was chilling. Completely shut down, then 'encouraged' to leave. Wonder if the TRAs will start badgering her employer, calling for her to be sacked?

if the only way you are allowed to advocate for women is without saying anything that any man doesn't like then you aren't allowed to advocate for women.

Chilling. The councillor explained that the women peacefully protesting outside didn’t want to be out there but had been disinvited. She explained about the need for single-sex rape crisis support, the right for disabled women to access same-sex intimate care, the right for women in custody to not face being strip-searched by male people who identify as female. The right for rape victims to not have to refer to their abuser in court as “she”.

The response from the woman on the stage was: “So, when I say I agree with the freedom of speech… as long as you’re not hurting anyone. And what people are doing is being transphobic and perpetuating ideas that are dangerous and lead to trans people being murdered. Please leave…”

So interesting that all the speaker can do is reframe speaking about vulnerable women as "harming trans people"

I pointed out on the Helen Joyce thread that as #nodebate has ended all transactivists now have is to try to "shame" people out of safeguarding - "you're being unkind, mean, causing harm. Leave - don't speak".

It just shows the intellectual and moral vacuum at the heart of this ideology.

It's a toddler level response. I don't like what you're saying - you're LITERALLY killing me with your NASTY WORDS!

I'd like the person on stage to explain how a wheelchair bound disabled woman wanting single sex care or a woman in prison wanting no men with erections in her showers is contributing to the murder of transpeople (less likely to be murdered than almost any other demographic group in the UK) - in clear logical steps.

This should be shown on national TV - it would peak the nation.

It's such stupid DARVO - disabled women not getting single sex care and women prisoners with violent men in their showers are the ones suffering real harms right now. I see no possible reason to think that their desire for single sex care or spaces affects transpeople in any way whatsoever unless those transpeople want to step right over those women's boundaries and rights.

I used to live fairly locally to this. Apparently they had the event closed down. Thats not opening debate

That venue has single sex toilets
Gender neutal toilets
baby changing units
And disabled toilets

They were perplexed at why they were demonstrating against them as they are inclusive

What on earth do the venue toilet arrangements have to do with anything?
Women who advocate for women (XX, natal, biological - however you wish to define it) were barred from attending, and silenced despite eloquently explaining their concerns.

I suspect that if we look back through history - any debate, or view point where an argument can only be supported through violence / harassment / closing down debate / etc. will be seen to be a view point that destroys society rather than building it up...

Occasions like this are horrific examples of intolerance - but the intolerance is only in the one direction (against women / GC views) alongside a dose of gaslighting to try and pretend that the intolerance is in the other direction...

however the one bright light in all of this is that by pushing so hard and so unreasonably against logical argument the pro-trans-activist lobby do more to damage their own position than they realise...

Yep and if caring about vulnerable women’s safety and dignity is “dangerous” to trans people, there’s a clear conflict of interest between gender ideology and women’s rights. Silencing debate will not make these issues go away.

The fundamental issue here is though the framing. Where trans reality is seen as a "belief system" rather than something fundamental to the individual's makeup. In the past being lesbian or gay was pitched as a belief system, or a choice.

So pitching someone's reality as a belief system, to be debated, is very poor framing.

Surely some of you must be able to see the echos' of time and ghosts of the past - the same tropes - being brought down on trans people being seen as today's scourge on society? I feel sorry for those that have this condition being constantly put through this. Their lives must be terrible.

I wonder who will be next after the trans people? Seems an inherent trait of being human to want to punch down on others.

You seem confused. Nobody was protesting about toilets.

And who got what shut down?

The only people I see punching down are TRAs insisting on taking away the right to safety and dignity from women.

Prove me wrong.

I'd also dearly like to know what "trans reality" is, in your terms?

Is that different from actual reality?

The women were protesting because they were barred from attending after they had previously arranged to attend.

It shouldn't be that hard to go and do some research as to why they were protesting.

Please stop using sexual orientation to prop up what actually IS a philosophical belief. A philosophical belief system may or may not reflect material reality. Considering gender identity is purely based on belief it is not supported by material reality at all. Otherwise there would be conclusive medical tests on body part that would show gender identity.

What I see is you, Mishy, continuing to try to leverage another group's oppression, those who are same sex attracted, to prop up your very poorly supported arguments.

No women are 'punching down' on trans people. You have also resorted to hyperbole.

The problem, Mishy, as you well know, is that reality does exist and while I can be persuaded that a man can love another man and a woman can love another woman, I have yet to be provided with any viable evidence that a man can be a woman.

The two things are not remotely comparable, even if the arguments look similar on the surface.

So if you can explain to me how a man can be a woman, and then explain why you believe we should change over from using the old definition of woman to the new one, then we can all go away and stop discussing it.

I would certainly be hugely relieved to know there was some actual evidence and that this is not simply a faith based argument. It certainly looks like it is right now.

Is it likely that the disciples of gender identity ideology genuinely believe that those who recognise the immutability of sex are evil? That disabled individuals who seek single-sex-care only do so out of a hatred of those who identify as transgender? That concerns about the state-sanctioned medicalisation and sterilisation of gay children are merely the latest manifestation of fascism?
All of this seems unlikely.

They do believe these things. Trans people believe them, and so do millennials and council employees, and do-gooders of every stripe. The panel member featured in that video clip believes it, and I'll wager it's not because she has a trans child or is thinking about keeping her job.

So why? Obviously there's money and glory in proselytising, 'training', and in medical treatment. But it doesn't really amount to a conspiracy. I think this is just an evolved idea with really high spreadability. A fast replicating meme, if you will. It has all the right attributes. An arcane concept that only the cognoscenti truly understand. Nobody important is hurt by it. Blasphemy rules prevent it from being critically examined.

So I disagree with the idea that there's a secret motive behind it, and would like to know what Doyle thinks it is.

Doesn't take long for them to come out of the woodwork, does it? 🙄Well done to that brave woman. And the rest of them outside in the rain.

Here you go. This is the reason they were 'demonstrating.' This is from Mandy Clare's Youtube feed on the questions she asked before she was ejected.

Local Women were dis-invited from holding a stall after they declined an invitation to appear on a panel alongside renowned men's rights activist Patsy Stevenson. Chester Storyhouse advised that they may as well not participate in the event at all and that they had the wrong values.

Mandy Clare detailed what the women were wishing to campaign inside about:

The right for female people to request a female carer for intimate care and be confident of getting that female carer.

The right for female people to be strip and intimately searched by only a female person while in police custody.

And for female people who are rape victims to not have to call their rapists ‘she’ in court.

Can you please tell us exactly which of these three issues that the women were there to campaign about that you disagree with ?

And Mishy, please be very precise which of these issues was women 'punching down' on trans people?

@MishyJDI I am interested in this part of your observation. 'Surely some of you must be able to see the echos' of time and ghosts of the past - the same tropes - being brought down on trans people being seen as today's scourge on society?'

I was around when Section 28 was a thing, still a child but around when homosexuality was illegal. Were you around then? If so I am genuinely perplexed about how you can make comparisons.

@MishyJDI this is about competing beliefs - the belief by a transwoman that he is a woman, and the belief of a vulnerable woman that he is a man.

We don't have to adjudicate on the rightness of either belief to decide on the right course of action. The woman is vulnerable. She shouldn't be forced into demeaning, threatening, intimate contact with someone she believes to be a man.

Since we know that he is actually a man, we also know that she could suffer real harm. But that is beside the point. The psychological harm is quite bad enough, compared to the lesser harm of telling the transwoman that, no, he can't intimately handle/strip search/share a cell with this woman.

And you've got to wonder why he would still insist on his right to do it, if it's going to distress her. Any ideas?

We don't need to talk about echoes and ghosts when we're talking about societies the world over and their treatment of women.

The same misogyny demands that a woman offer her body to validate a very particular type of male* / prevents a woman using social media in Afghanistan / allows spies to dececive women into bearing their children/ forces women to birth unwanted children in America. It is ALL based upon the belief that women are second class citizens who exist to service and support males.

• I don't buy for a second all transwomen would wish to knowingly violate women's boundaries. Women are not going to stop calling out those that do nor criticising the very regressive culture which enables it.

Northern Rad Fem network were protesting the event. Seems one male supporter in a wheelchair may have been arrested: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1763893291865485502