Less Heat

[Brainworm]

The media coverage of the attempted assassination of Trump prompted me to recall a time when a friend of mine worked in the House of Commons in the mid 1990s. Whilst political differences were as significant then as now, MPs from opposite sides of the house were best men at each other's weddings (yes, it was mostly men who were MPs), god parents to each others children etc.

Whilst the 'gender debate' is often described as 'toxic', this is within a climate of it being common place for political views / positioning to being considered something other than 'different conclusions/positions'. Views and opinions are often dismissed or condemned as 'hateful' or 'ignorant', when they simply involve people giving more weight to certain points than others and drawing different conclusions.

I can be, and am, friends with people who claim TWAW. I can be friends with someone who believes there should be single sex spaces yet males with certain thoughts about them should be admitted. The thing that would get in the way of our friendship would be refusal to have reasoned discussions and incorrect accusations of hatred. If I felt that their opinions were based on false premises, I could just say that and still maintain my friendship. I could only maintain a meaningful friendship if they also 'agreed to disagree'.

I have friends who follow all sorts of fad diets and buy 'miracle creams' for cellulite. I have friends who play the national lottery - experiencing a frisson of excitement that this week they really feel it's their lucky week. I am the 'sciencey' friend who 'pisses on their chips'.

I have some friends who are incredibly angry and anxious about climate change. They are also 'TWAW' and want TW to be included in female spaces. I have explained to them that the 'real and present' threat they feel around global warming despite there being little impact of people's current daily life, is similar to the threat some people feel in relation to single sex provision. Since this discussion, they have been far more open to my position and views and we can and do discuss them at times. We also connect and have fun together in lots of other ways and they are lovely, caring people who enrich my life.

I think social media, and what is reported, gives rise to the idea that people with different views are so polarised that they can't have civil discussions, let alone be friends. I'm interested in hearing from FWR posters as to whether this is the case for them?

All but one of my best friends disagree with me politically. We had a bit of political chat during the election campaign but from a basis of respect for each other's opinions.

We're all terfs though 😀

Could you be friends with someone who thinks of themselves as a feminist but includes some males in their definition of 'women'? Would this preclude you being friends with them?

I think social media points to this being the case.

I am fine with different political leanings. I am fine with people believing in many different things. But I find I'm starting to go down the path of feeling that a person believing TWAW is akin to them being a racist. Their belief is harming others. And that is where I draw my line.

I don't know why you brought in diets or the lottery shrugs

I think you make a very good point but tbh I find it very hard to the point of impossible to be around people who don’t understand the trans issue

I can be, and am, friends with people who disagree with me. The problem with TWAW people is that I don’t believe anyone really thinks that’s true. So under the politeness we both know they are lying to try to force me into ‘being kind’ by sacrificing my rights, safety, sports etc. The best I can do with that kind of person is polite acquaintance based on a mutual understanding that we don’t discuss that subject.

I am friends with someone who thinks he is supporting women by saying TWAW. We avoid the topic because there is really nothing I can say to sway him but it has certainly changed my opinion of him.

Years ago, I used to be in the TWAW camp because there were a miniscule amount of men who got surgery or their GRC. It was absolutely unheard of for a man to use refuge facilities or a rape crisis group.

I was bemused when Germaine Greer was in the news saying that a man or TW shouldn't have become head of women's studies. She received a lot of criticism for it and was considered a bit of a dinosaur. That was a while before the floodgates opened.

I don't think the fierce proponents of TWAW fully understand the situation and the threat to women's rights. A lot of people cite the 1% of the population figure as though to say that there are so few transpeople, that it isn't really a threat.

There have been some U turns regarding this and I'm sure they'll increase as the danger is more clearly spelled out. The problem now is how to put the genie back into the bottle.

@cupcaske123 I agree. I used to think I was very unlikely to meet a TW in a toilet or changing room. Now I am expected to change with one if I use sports facilities. No.

'I can be, and am, friends with people who claim TWAW.'

I think it depends on the definition of 'friend'. I could get on OK with someone who is TWAW if they were just pals, but someone who was a close friend, a confidante - no. Not for ideological reasons per se*, it's just that it's such a major and profound issue involving who I am, I wouldn't feel I could trust them to understand or support me fully. I also value good sense and adherence to reality in my friends, and being TWAW negates that.

*as I typed 'reasons per se', I thought uh-oh, this being FWR, people know stuff that I don't, like Latin, so I wonder should there be a plural form of 'per se' to agree with 'reasons'?
Anybody know? I can add it to my extensive and valued collection of pedantic trivia😄

I'd struggle to be okay with disagreement in good faith, as the opposing position is pro-mutilation of kids.

That said, I could conduct the debate civilly and unguardedly if members of the other side were not so addicted in their attempts to destroy the individual reputations of people who are pro-reality.

TRAs and middle-groundists have been deploying the chilling-effect and smearing for a decade. Now you want ME to take the heat out of it, when they are being exposed for what they are? Nah. I'll just sit here and laugh as they implode under their own hidden shame and cognitive dissonance.

If you were pro-child-experimentation after talking to me or my ilk face to face, go look in the mirror. There's the person to blame.

So if a friend of yours said they thought transwomen were women you'd accuse them of wanting to mutilate children?

That would depend on their stance on the existence of 'trans children' and their incident rate Vs gender non-conforming kids and appropriate least harm responses, based on the statistics.

To their TWAW stance - I'd hazard they are anti-reality, anti-women being entitled to safe(r) single sex spaces and possibly quite thick. I certainly wouldn't be holding them in quite the same esteem as I might have prior to the revelation, as their ability to engage in logic is obviously down the toilet.

Will that do for you?

Trans Dogs are Cats. Please can we still be full throated friends who respect each other's cognitive abilities fully?

No. I wouldn't want a TWAW "believer" as a friend.
Because either - they are really stupid if they truly believe this and I have no patience with such profound stupidity
Or - they are liars.

I have friends who disagree on things. I have friends of various religions, I'm an atheist, I consider this a bit like that.
I have TWAW children (late teens). We don't discuss it as they cry and shout and I roll my eyes at them and I imagine they'll grow out of it eventually.

I was doing an evening class and a bloke said that dogs might as well get married now that gay people can. He thought he was amusing too.

I wouldn't bother with anyone who said TWAW or non-binary is valid.
To me it means that they are quite small-minded and think people should conform to 1950s gender sterotypes, with surgery if necessary, and harming children and women. It's medicalising all the gay kids, all the tomboys, all the quirky kids and telling them they should conform. No bloody way - we were past that in the 1980s, I'm not going back.

My friendship group is a mish mash of many different political opinions, as we're all from different backgrounds. 1 or 2 are 'GC' But we are all able to have reasonable discussions which don't inevitably dissolve into one side being labelled "pro mutilation" and other side "transphobic bigots". Thankfully.

No. I don't share the beliefs and I will not be told how to think, speak or act.
There are 2 sexes and an infinite number of personalities and characters.

Some people believe in fgm and corporal punishment to keep girls on the straight and narrow.
Now that those practices have stigma attached to them, we are all so comfortable to turn our noses up at anyone who voices them.
The women and men who fought for us to have the right to snub these practices are forgotten.
They would have endured this questioning too : "are you going to tell her to allow her daughter be promiscuous?" Etc
Sometimes uncomfortable discussions are the way forward.

And as long as any religions don't impose their beliefs on me, I'll most likely have a drink with anyone. The fun stops when the recruiting starts.

Oh no! I failed to amuse you! Please allow me to walk into the sea.

Titter

I am friends with TWAW people, some friendly acquaintances, some good friends. We all know each other's opinions, have discussed them to various degrees and remained friends.

The 'toxic debate', as well all know, has been caused by gender ideologues who have threatened and harassed women and the framing of the debate as 'toxic' is used as a body shield by politicians too cowardly to condemn this anti-democratic misogynistic thuggery and too intimidated or indifferent to stand up for women's basic human rights.

I do have more respect for my GC friends though as my TWAW friends have really crap arguments : )

I am happy to agree to disagree on most subjects, but on TWAW - it means the person is either a) incredibly stupid or b) incredibly misogynistic, neither of which are qualities I want in a friend.

got to disagree on this point. Do you mean that those that are GC are not able to be misogynistic? if so, Glinner is a great example of how GC doesn't equal not being misogynistic.

There are many men who hold GC views and are misogynistic.
Some GC women who believe in a patriarchal society.
Some GC who also are anti-abortion.
I've encountered all of the above as well as racism, ableism and much more.

Being GC doesn't absolve someone of having shitty opinions that are damaging to all women.